The physics potential of HL-LHCEditors:

Workshop steering group: A. Dainese, M.L. Mangano, A.B. Meyer, A. Nisati, G.P. Salam, M. VesterinenWG1 conveners: P. Azzi, S. Farry, P. Nason, A. Tricoli, and D. ZeppenfeldWG2 conveners: M. Cepeda, S. Gori, P. Ilten, M. Kado, and F. Riva,WG3 conveners: X. Cid-Vidal, M. D’Onofrio, P. J. Fox, R. Torre, and K. UlmerWG4 conveners: A. Cerri, V.V. Gligorov, S. Malvezzi, J. Martin Camalich, and J. ZupanWG5 conveners: Z. Citron, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, J. M. Jowett, Y.-J. Lee, U. Wiedemann, M. Winn

Contributing authors: see Addendum

ABSTRACTThis document presents the executive summary of the findings of the Workshop on "The physics of HL-LHC, and perspectiveson HE-LHC", which has run for over a year since its kick-off meeting on 30 October – 1 November 2017. We discuss here theHL-LHC physics programme. As approved today, this covers (a) pp collisions at 14 TeV with an integrated luminosity of 3 ab−1

each for ATLAS and CMS, and 50 fb−1 for LHCb, and (b) Pb–Pb and p–Pb collisions with integrated luminosities of 13 nb−1

and 50 nb−1, respectively. In view of possible further upgrades of LHCb and of the ions programme, the WG reports assume300 fb−1 of luminosity delivered to an Upgrade II of LHCb, 1.2 pb−1 of integrated luminosity for p–Pb collisions, and the additionof collisions with other nuclear species. A separate submission covers the HE-LHC results.The activity has been carried out by five working groups (WGs): “Standard Model” (WG1), “Higgs” (WG2), “Beyond the StandardModel” (WG3), “Flavour” (WG4) and “QCD matter at high density” (WG5). Their reports, extending this executive summarywith more results and details, are available on the CERN Document Server [1–5], and will appear on arXiv. The WG resultsinclude both phenomenological studies and detailed simulations of the anticipated performance of the LHC detectors underHL-LHC conditions. These latter studies implement the knowledge acquired during the preparation of the technical designreports for the upgraded detectors, and reflect the experience gained by the experiments during the first two runs of the LHC.The documents describing in full detail the HL-LHC studies performed by the experiments can be found in Ref. [6] (available inearly 2019) and in Ref. [7].Three goals have been set for the Workshop: (i) to update and extend the projections for the precision and reach of theHL-LHC measurements, and for their interpretation; (ii) to highlight new opportunities for discovery of phenomena beyond theStandard Model (BSM), in view of the latest theoretical developments and of recent data; (iii) to explore possible new directionsand/or extensions of the approved HL-LHC programme, particularly in the area of flavour, in the search for elusive BSMphenomena, and in the study of QCD matter at high density. In addition to enriching and consolidating the physics plans forHL-LHC, and highlighting the significant advances that the full HL-LHC programme will bring relative to today’s landscape, thiscontribution to the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update process is intended to help put in perspective the physicspotential of future projects beyond HL-LHC.

References1. P. Azzi, S. Farry, P. Nason, A. Tricoli, and D. Zeppenfeld, (conveners), et al, Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and

HE-LHC , CERN-LPCC-2018-03, CERN, Geneva, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650160.

2. M. Cepeda, S. Gori, P. J. Ilten, M. Kado, and F. Riva, (conveners), et al, Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,CERN-LPCC-2018-04, CERN, Geneva, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650162.

3. X. Cid-Vidal, M. D’Onofrio, P. J. Fox, R. Torre, and K. Ulmer, (conveners), et al, Beyond the Standard Model Physics at theHL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN-LPCC-2018-05, CERN, Geneva, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650173.

4. A. Cerri, V. V. Gligorov, S. Malvezzi, J. Martin Camalich, and J. Zupan, (conveners), et al, Flavour Physics at the HL-LHCand HE-LHC, CERN-LPCC-2018-06, CERN, Geneva, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650175.

5. Z. Citron, A. Dainese, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, J. M. Jowett, Y.-J. Lee, U. Wiedemann, and M. A. Winn, (conveners), et al,Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams, CERN-LPCC-2018-07,CERN, Geneva, 2018. arXiv:1812.06772 [hep-ph]. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2650176.

6. The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Report on the Physics at the HL-LHC and Perspectives for the HE-LHC,CERN-LPCC-2019-01, CERN, Geneva, 2019. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2651134.

7. LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Physics case for an LHCb Upgrade II - Opportunities in flavour physics, and beyond, inthe HL-LHC era, arXiv:1808.08865.

1 Precision, exploration potential and breadth: the new frontiers of the HL-LHC physicsprogramme

The analysis of LHC data since the time of the last European Strategy review (2012-2013) has confirmed the immense physicspotential of the LHC to perform very precise and sensitive measurements, in spite of the highly challenging experimentalenvironment, already now characterized by pile-up conditions well beyond those originally foreseen. Among others, examplesof this are provided by the progress made in the exploration of the Higgs sector, where the coupling to electroweak (EW) gaugebosons and to all charged third-generation fermions have been established to better than 5 standard deviations (s.d.), by themeasurement of Standard Model (SM) cross sections and distributions to the percent level (e.g. for the production of W andZ vector bosons), by the precise determination of the top quark and W boson mass, and by an ever growing set of studies inthe flavour sector. The outstanding performance and versatility of the LHC experiments have also inspired a diverse researchprogramme, ranging from precise measurements of total cross sections and forward physics, to the discovery of new families ofhadrons, challenging the status quo of hadronic spectroscopy. In parallel, the progress of theoretical calculations has made itpossible to sharpen the interpretation of the data, and to increase the sensitivity to potential deviations from the SM. Unexpectedobservations have also emerged from the study of collisions with heavy ions, questioning paradigms and opening new directionsin the exploration of QCD matter at the highest densities.

The legacy of the last few years of LHC studies is therefore a stronger confidence in the LHC’s potential to push the reachfor precision and sensitivity well beyond what was originally assumed possible. The updated projections for key observablesprepared by the WGs build on this coherent progress in reducing both theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties,and in extending the scope of the programme to a broader range of measurements and probes of fundamental interactions.

These studies underscore the immense value provided, in all domains, by the HL-LHC era. The importance of collecting adataset with large integrated luminosity has clearly emerged during the Workshop activities. It will give access to the rarestphenomena, and will be critical to reduce systematics or bypass their limitations with new analyses, leading to measurements ofhitherto unanticipated precision. It will provide the relevant sensitivity to sectors of BSM phenomena that are still beyond thereach of current analyses, and ultimately it will allow us to get closer to answering the big open questions of our field. Theselection of results presented here, and the more complete collection contained in the WG reports, define challenging newtargets, and redesign the landscape of knowledge that will be available by the end of HL-LHC.

2 Higgs properties and EW phenomenaThe determination of Higgs boson properties, and their connection to EW symmetry breaking (EWSB), is the primary targetof the HL-LHC physics programme. Since 2012, the Higgs physics programme has rapidly expanded, with new ideas, moreprecise predictions and improved analyses, into a major program of precision measurements, as well as searches for rareproduction and decay processes. Outstanding opportunities have emerged for measurements of fundamental importance, suchas the first direct constraints on the Higgs trilinear self-coupling and the natural width. The HL-LHC programme covers alsosearches for additional Higgs bosons in EWSB scenarios motivated by theories beyond the SM (BSM). Finally, a rigorouseffective field theory (EFT) framework allows one to parametrise in a model independent way all EW and Higgs results. Thissection updates the key expectations for HL-LHC, and summarizes the interpretation of the future constraints on new physics interms of EFT couplings. The complete set of results is available in Ref. [2]. This reappraisal of the future sensitivities relieson the Run 2 analyses improvements and assumes the detector performance targets established in the experiments’ upgradeTDRs. Further improvements should be possible with analyses optimised for the HL-LHC data sets. The main Higgs bosonmeasurement channels correspond to five production modes (the gluon fusion ggF, the vector boson fusion VBF, the associatedproduction with a vector boson WH and ZH, and the associated production with a pair of top quarks ttH) and seven decaymodes: H → γγ , ZZ∗, WW ∗, τ+τ−, bb, µ+µ− and Zγ . The latter two decay channels, as yet unobserved, should becomevisible, in the SM, during the next two LHC runs. The rate measurements in the aforementioned production and decay channelsyield measurements of the Higgs couplings in the so-called "κ-framework". This introduces a set of κi factors that linearlymodify the coupling of the Higgs boson to SM elementary particles (i), including the effective couplings to gluons and photons,and assuming no additional BSM contribution to the Higgs total width, ΓH . The projected uncertainties, combining ATLASand CMS, are summarised in Fig. 1. They include today’s theory uncertainties reduced by a factor of two, which is close tothe uncertainty that would result from using the improved HL-LHC parton distribution functions (PDFs, see Section 4.1) andconsidering signal theory uncertainties as uncorrelated. Except for rare decays, the overall uncertainties will be dominated bythe theoretical systematics, with a precision close to percent level.

The main Higgs boson couplings will be measured at HL-LHC with a precision at the percent level. Large statistics willparticularly help the study of complex final states, such as those arising from ttH production. The constraining power of thecurrent ttH analyses has been limited to plausible improvements in the theory predictions, in particular in the H→ bb channel.The 3.4% precision on κt thus obtained is mostly due to the other direct ttH measurement channels.

1

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14Expected uncertainty

γZκµκτκbκtκ

gκZκ

Wκγκ

9.8

4.3

1.9

3.7

3.4

2.5

1.5

1.7

1.8

6.4 7.2 1.7

1.7 3.8 1.0

1.5 0.9 0.8

3.2 1.3 1.3

3.1 0.9 1.1

2.1 0.9 0.8

1.2 0.7 0.6

1.3 0.8 0.7

1.3 0.8 1.0 Tot Stat Exp ThUncertainty [%]

CMS and ATLASHL-LHC Projection

per experiment-1 = 14 TeV, 3000 fbs

TotalStatisticalExperimentalTheory

2% 4%

Figure 1. Projected uncertainties on κi, combiningATLAS and CMS: total (grey box), statistical (blue),experimental (green) and theory (red). From Ref. [2].

These coupling measurements assume the absence of sizableadditional contributions to ΓH . As recently suggested, the patternsof quantum interference between background and Higgs-mediatedproduction of photon pairs or four leptons are sensitive to ΓH .Measuring the off-shell four-fermion final states, and assumingthe Higgs couplings to gluons and ZZ evolve off-shell as in theSM, the HL-LHC will extract ΓH with a 20% precision at 68% CL.Furthermore, combining all Higgs channels, and with the soleassumption that the couplings to vector bosons are not larger thanthe SM ones (κV ≤ 1), will constrain ΓH with a 5% precision at95% CL. Invisible Higgs boson decays will be searched for atHL-LHC in all production channels, VBF being the most sensitive.The combination of ATLAS and CMS Higgs boson coupling mea-surements will set an upper limit on the Higgs invisible branchingratio of 2.5%, at the 95% CL. The precision reach in the mea-surements of ratios will be at the percent level, with particularlyinteresting measurements of κγ/κZ, which serves as a probe ofnew physics entering the H→ γγ loop, can be measured with anuncertainty of 1.4%, and κt/κg, which serves as probe of newphysics entering the gg→ H loop, with a precision of 3.4%.

A summary of the limits obtained on first and second gen-eration quarks from a variety of observables is given in Fig. 2(left). It includes: (i) HL-LHC projections for exclusive decays ofthe Higgs into quarkonia; (ii) constraints from fits to differentialcross sections of kinematic observables (in particular pT); (iii)constraints on the total width ΓH relying on different assumptions(the examples given in the Fig. 2 (left) correspond to a projected limit of 200 MeV on the total width from the mass shiftfrom the interference in the diphoton channel between signal and continuous background and the constraint at 68% CL on thetotal width from off-shell couplings measurements of 20%); (iv) a global fit of Higgs production cross sections (yielding theconstraint of 5% on the width mentioned herein); and (v) the direct search for Higgs decays to cc using inclusive charm taggingtechniques. Assuming SM couplings, the latter is expected to lead to the most stringent upper limit of κc / 2. A combination ofATLAS, CMS and LHCb results would further improve this constraint to κc / 1.

The Run 2 experience in searches for Higgs pair production led to a reappraisal of the HL-LHC sensitivity, including severalchannels, some of which were not considered in previous projections: 2b2γ , 2b2τ , 4b, 2bWW, 2bZZ. Assuming the SM Higgs

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

projected coupling limit

κc

κs

κd

κu

1.7

2.2

11

2.8

83

14

28

3.0× 103

3.0× 102

3.5× 102

5.9× 102

1.4× 105

6.4× 102

6.4× 102

1.3× 103

2.9× 105

HL-LHC projection 3000 fb−1

global (95% CL)

direct search (95% CL)

kinematic (95% CL)

width (off-shell, 68% CL)

width (int., 95% CL)

exclusive (95% CL)

O3W OGG OWW OBB OHW OHB OWB OHD OH Oy O2W O2B O6O3W OGG OWW OBB OHW OHB OWB OHD OH Oy O2W O2B O6O3W OGG OWW OBB OHW OHB OWB OHD OH Oy O2W O2B O6

Exclusive boundLHC+LEP/SLD HL-LHC

0.1

0.5

1

5

10

50

4

1

0.04

0.01

4⨯10-4

Λ/Ci[TeV

]

Ci/Λ2[TeV

-2]

95% prob. bounds

Figure 2. Left: Summary of the projected HL-LHC limits on the quark Yukawa couplings. Right: Summary of constraints onthe SMEFT operators considered. The shaded bounds arise from a global fit of all operators, those assuming the existence of asingle operator are labeled as "exclusive". From Ref. [2].

2

λk2− 1− 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ln(L

)Δ

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Combination

γγbb

ττbb

bbbb

ZZ*(4l)bb

)νlνVV(lbb68% CL

95% CL

99.4% CL

(14 TeV)-13000 fbCMS and ATLASHL-LHC prospects

σsignificance: 4SM HH signal

< 1.5 [68% CL]λ0.5 < k < 2.3 [95% CL]λ0.1 < k

HL-LHC prospects 3 ab-1 (14 TeV)ATLAS and CMS

SM HH significance: 4σ

λk2− 1− 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ln(L

)Δ

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Combination

γγbb

ττbb

bbbb

ZZ*(4l)bb

)νlνVV(lbb68% CL

95% CL

99.4% CL

(14 TeV)-13000 fbCMS and ATLASHL-LHC prospects

σsignificance: 4SM HH signal

< 1.5 [68% CL]λ0.5 < k < 2.3 [95% CL]λ0.1 < k

λk2− 1− 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ln(L

)Δ

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

bbbb

ττbb

)νlνVV(lbb

γγbb

ZZ*(4l)bb

Combination

68%

95%

99.4%

(14 TeV)-13000 fbCMS and ATLASHL-LHC prospects

σsignificance: 4SM HH signal

< 1.5 [68% CL]λ0.5 < k < 2.3 [95% CL]λ0.1 < k

λk2− 1− 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ln(L

)Δ

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Combination

γγbb

ττbb

bbbb

ZZ*(4l)bb

)νlνVV(lbb68% CL

95% CL

99.4% CL

(14 TeV)-13000 fbCMS and ATLASHL-LHC prospects

σsignificance: 4SM HH signal

< 1.5 [68% CL]λ0.5 < k < 2.3 [95% CL]λ0.1 < k

λk2− 1− 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ln(L

)Δ

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Combination

γγbb

ττbb

bbbb

ZZ*(4l)bb

)νlνVV(lbb68% CL

95% CL

99.4% CL

(14 TeV)-13000 fbCMS and ATLASHL-LHC prospects

σsignificance: 4SM HH signal

< 1.5 [68% CL]λ0.5 < k < 2.3 [95% CL]λ0.1 < k

0.1 < !" < 2.3 [95% CL] 0.5 < !" < 1.5 [68% CL]

!"500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

MA [GeV]

10

20

30

40

50

tanβ

14 TeV

with YR18 syst. uncert.

M 125h scenario

h(125) rates

ATLAS 36.1 fb−1 ⊕ CMS 35.9 fb−1

ATLAS 3 ab−1 ⊕ CMS 3 ab−1

H/A→ τ+τ− expected exclusion (95% C.L.)

ATLAS 3 ab−1 ⊕ CMS 3 ab−1

±1σ

±2σ

ATLAS 36.1 fb−1 [JHEP 01(2018)055]

CMS 35.9 fb−1 [JHEP 09(2018)007]

Mh 6=(125± 3) GeV

Figure 3. Left: Projected combined HL-LHC sensitivity to Higgs trilinear coupling from direct search channels. Right:sensitivity to BSM Higgs bosons, in the H/A→ ττ channel. From Ref. [2].

self-coupling λ , ATLAS and CMS project a sensitivity to the HH signal of approximately 3 s.d. per experiment, leading toa combined observation sensitivity of 4 s.d. These analyses, which make use also of the HH mass spectrum shape, result inthe likelihood profile as a function of κλ shown in Fig. 3 (left). An important feature of these analyses is the presence of thesecondary minimum in the likelihood lineshape, due to the degeneracy in the total number of HH signal events for different κλ

values. We note that at the HL-LHC the secondary minimum can be excluded at 99.4% CL, with a constraint on the Higgsself-coupling of 0.5 < κλ < 1.5 at the 68% CL. The results on HH production studies are statistics limited, therefore a datasetof at least 6 ab−1 (ATLAS and CMS combined) is essential to achieve this objective.

Higgs studies at HL-LHC will enhance the sensitivity to BSM physics, exploiting indirect probes via precision measurements,and a multitude of direct search targets, ranging from exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson (e.g. decays including lightscalars, light dark photons or axion-like particles, and decays to long-lived BSM particles) to the production of new Higgsbosons, neutral and charged, at masses above or below 125 GeV. As an example, Fig. 3 (right) shows a summary of the MSSMregions of parameter space that will be probed by ATLAS and CMS. The expected exclusion limit for H/A→ ττ is presentedin black-dashed and compared to the present limit (in red and green for ATLAS and CMS, respectively). The HL-LHC willhave access to new Higgs bosons as heavy as 2.5 TeV for tanβ > 50. In the figure, we also present the expected bound comingfrom Higgs precision coupling measurements which excludes Higgs bosons with masses lower than approximately 1 TeV overa large range of tanβ .

Precision measurements provide an important tool to search for BSM physics associated to mass scales beyond the LHCdirect reach. The EFT framework, where the SM Lagrangian is supplemented with dimension-6 operators ∑i ciO

(6)i /Λ2, allows

one to systematically parametrise BSM effects and how they modify SM processes. Figure 2 (right) shows the results of a globalfit to observables in Higgs physics, as well as diboson and Drell-Yan processes at high energy. The fit includes all operatorsgenerated by new physics that only couples to SM bosons. These operators can either modify SM amplitudes, or generate newamplitudes. In the former case, the best LHC probes are, for example, precision measurements of Higgs branching ratios. In thecase of the operator OH , for example, the constraints in Fig. 2 (right) translate into a sensitivity to the Higgs compositenessscale f > 1.6 TeV, corresponding to a new physics mass scale of 20 TeV for an underlying strongly coupled theory. The effectsassociated with some new amplitudes grow quadratically with the energy. For example, Drell-Yan production at large mass canaccess, via the operators O2W,2B, energy scales of order 12 TeV (Fig. 2).

2.1 Production of multiple EW gauge bosonsThe measurement of production of pairs or triplets of EW gauge boson will be of great importance to test the mechanism of EWsymmetry breaking, since it can signal the presence of anomalous EW couplings, and of new physics at energy scales beyondthe reach of direct resonance production. First observations of EW multiboson interactions have recently been achieved invector boson scattering (VBS) of WW and WZ and we expect a fuller picture to be accessible at HL-LHC, by statistics, but alsothrough improved detector instrumentation and acceptance in the forward direction. Table 1 summarizes the expected SM yields,quoting the expected precision and significance for several HL-LHC measurements. In particular, the extraction of individualpolarization contributions to same-sign WW scattering will yield a > 3 s.d. evidence for WLWL production, combining ATLASand CMS results.

3

Table 1. Expected precision andsignificance for the measurement ofseveral EW multiboson processes [1].

Process W±W± WZ WV ZZ WWW WWZ WZZFinal state `±`±jj 3`jj `jjjj 4`jj 3`3ν 4`2ν 5`νPrecision 6% 6% 6.5% 10–40% 11% 27% 36%Significance > 5σ > 5σ > 5σ > 5σ > 5σ 3.0σ 3.0σ

2.2 sin2θeffsin2θeffsin2θeff, mWmWmW and mtopmtopmtop

The current world average of the weak mixing angle sin2θeff = 0.23153 ± 0.00016 is dominated by determinations based on

data from LEP and from SLD. Those determinations, however, differ by over 3 s.d.. A precision extraction using HL-LHC datacan help settle this long-standing issue, giving insight into the source of tension between LEP and SLD, whether this is the resultof systematics, or of new physics. The statistical precision of sin2

θeff measurements with ATLAS, CMS and LHCb will bebetter than 5 ·10−5. The overall uncertainty will remain dominated by the PDFs, which can be reduced to 10−16 ·10−5 usingin situ constraints, with an overall uncertainty below 18 ·10−5. The PDF uncertainty on sin2

θeff can be reduced by 10%−25%using the global fits to HL-LHC data, as discussed in Sec. 4.1. Data from the LHeC collider would have the potential to reducethe PDF uncertainties by an additional factor of 5.

Another key target of the LHC is to improve the knowledge of the W boson mass, mW . The HL-LHC will greatly reducethe systematics, by limiting the PDF sensitivity via the extended leptonic coverage |η |< 4, and via its own PDF constraints.Dedicated low-pileup runs will provide the required conditions to optimize the reconstruction of missing transverse momentum,and five to ten weeks of data taking in the course of the HL-LHC will lead to a statistical precision of about 3 MeV. Experimentalsystematic uncertainties are largely of statistical nature, and with adequate efforts and exploiting the full available data sample,their impact can be maintained at a level similar to the statistical uncertainty. Assuming the extended lepton coverage allowedby the HL-LHC detectors, the impact of PDF uncertainties on the mW measurement, using today’s PDF sets, would amount to5-8 MeV. These uncertainties are further reduced to about 4 MeV when using the HL-LHC ultimate PDF set (Sec. 4.1), leadingto an overall HL-LHC target of ∆mW =±6 MeV. LHeC measurements could further reduce the PDF systematics to 2 MeV.

The projections for the top mass measurements are collected in Table 2. With a mostly negligible statistical uncertainty, theyreflect the anticipated measurement and modeling systematics, but do not include the uncertainty in the interpretation in terms ofa theoretically well defined mass (see the discussion in Ref. [1]). Progress here will be driven by future theoretical developments,supported by the large amount of data and of probes of the top mass subject to independent theoretical systematics.

Table 2. Projected total uncertainties on thetop quark mass, obtained with differentmethods. From Ref. [1].

Method: tt lepton+jets t-channel single top mSV ` J/ψ σtt∆mtop (GeV): 0.17 0.45 0.62 0.50 1.2

3 Flavour physicsThe LHCb experiment has demonstrated emphatically that the LHC is an ideal laboratory for a comprehensive programmeof flavour physics. The LHCb Upgrade II, combined with the enhanced B-physics capabilities of the Phase II upgrades ofATLAS and CMS, will enable a wide range of flavour observables to be determined at HL-LHC with unprecedented precision,complementing and extending the reach of Belle II, and of the high-pT physics programme. Some highlights are given here,see Ref. [4] for a comprehensive overview.

3.1 Testing CKM unitarityThe unitary nature of the CKM matrix, and the assumptions of the SM, impose nontrivial relations between the CKM elements,implying the closure of the vertices of the standard unitarity triangle, Fig. 4. The angle γ can be extracted with smallexperimental and theoretical systematics, but is the least well known (±5◦), due to statistics. LHCb Upgrade II will improvethe precision by an order of magnitude, or better. The precision measurement of the Bs weak mixing phase will be anotherhighlight of the programme. The expected precision on φ ccs

s at the end of the HL-LHC period will be ∼ 5 mrad for ATLAS andCMS, and ∼ 3 mrad for LHCb . This will be at the same level as the current precision on the indirect determination basedon the CKM fit using tree-level measurements. The anticipated impact of these improvements can be seen in Fig. 4. Theincreased sensitivity will allow for extremely precise tests of the CKM paradigm. In particular, it will permit the tree-levelobservables, which provide SM benchmarks, to be assessed against those with loop contributions, which are more susceptibleto new physics.

3.2 Bottom quark probes of new physics and prospects for B-anomaliesThe flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions b→ s(d)`+`+ provide some of the most sensitive probes of newphysics. For most of the corresponding observables, this sensitivity is statistics limited. The HL-LHC, combining ATLAS, CMSand LHCb Upgrade II, is the only facility with the potential to distinguish between some plausible new physics scenarios. As anexample, Fig. 5 shows the potential sensitivity to the C9 and C10 Wilson coefficients, illustrating scenarios with modificationsof just C9 (vector current) and of both C9 =−C10 (pure left-handed current). The fits use the measurements of the branching

4

Figure 4. Projected constraints in theρ− η plane from LHCb measurementsand lattice QCD calculations alone, after300 fb−1 at the end of HL-LHC. FromRef. [4].

γsm∆ & dm∆

cb/VubV

βsin 2

α

βγ

ρ-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

η

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Phase II

CKMf i t t e r

α0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.250.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

fraction Bs→ µ+µ− and the angular observables from the decay B0→ K∗0µ+µ− in the low-q2 region (e.g. P′5). The reachfor generic new physics at tree-level is found to exceed 100 TeV, doubling the reach prior to the HL-LHC. An example of theimpact of new physics on the ratio of branching fractions B(Bd → µ+µ−)/B(Bs→ µ+µ−) is shown on the right of Fig. 5,where a scatter plot of BSM models currently allowed by data is compared against the future 10% HL-LHC sensitivity.

Figure 5. Left: Potential HL-LHC sensitivityto the Wilson coefficients C9 (vector current) andC9 =−C10 (pure left-handed current),combining LHCb, ATLAS and CMS. Right:BR(B0

s → µ+µ−) vs. BR(B0d → µ+µ−) in the

SM (black mark), and in sets of BSM modelswith FCNC interactions consistent with currentdata (green points). The coloured contours showthe expected 1 s.d. HL-LHC sensitivity ofATLAS, CMS, and LHCb Upgrade II. SeeRef. [4] for details.

−1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5

Cbsµµ9

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Cbsµµ

10

flavio

Phase I 3σ

Phase II 3σ

SMNP C9

NP C9 = −C10 2 3 4 5 6]-9) [10-µ +µ →

s0B(B

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

]-9

) [1

0- µ + µ

→ d0B

(B

SM

σATLAS 1

σCMS 1

σLHCb 1

HL-LHC

3.3 Top FCNCThe top quark is characterized by its large mass and its O(1) coupling to the Higgs, quite distinct from any other SM fermion.Studying top quark properties may shed light on the resolution of the SM flavour puzzle, or at least as to why one and onlyone Yukawa coupling is large. BSM models addressing the hierarchy problem may thus well leave an imprint in the top quarkproperties and decays. For instance, the top FCNCs, t → cγ,cZ,cg are null tests of the SM and are used as BSM probes.The search for these transitions is typically statistics limited, and will greatly benefit from the HL-LHC statistics. Currentprojections are shown in Table 3.

t→ gu t→ gc t→ qZ t→ γu t→ γc t→ Hq3.8×10−6 3.2×10−5 2.4−5.8×10−5 8.6×10−6 7.4×10−5 10−4

Table 3. Projected reach for the 95%C.L. limits on the branching ratio foranomalous flavor changing top quarkcouplings [1].

3.4 Probing new physics with 2nd generation quarks and τ leptonsIndirect CP violation in the charm system is predicted to be very small in the SM, O(10−4) or less. In the absence of newphysics contributions, the LHCb Upgrade II may well be the only facility with a realistic probability of observing it, reaching asensitivity of O(10−5). A full programme of direct CP-violation searches in charm will also be performed, with complementaryapproaches and probing modes sensitive to both SM and new physics. Additionally, τ lepton decays offer a rich landscapeto search for charged lepton flavour violation. The HL-LHC will be competitive with Belle-II in the τ → µµµ decay, withATLAS, CMS and LHCb all approaching O(10−9) sensitivity on the branching ratio.

3.5 Hadron spectroscopy and QCD exoticaThe LHC has had a transformative impact on the field of hadron spectroscopy, but this is only the beginning of a new era ofmeasurements on the known states to determine their nature and opportunities for further particles to be observed. Due toits ability to reconstruct and analyze all collisions in real-time, LHCb Upgrade II will be able to collect a unique dataset forhadronic spectroscopy. This will enable a detailed and broad understanding of tetraquarks, pentaquarks, baryons containingmultiple heavy quarks, and other yet-to-be-discovered exotic hadrons. While not directly sensitive to BSM effects, thesemeasurements will play an important role in sharpening our understanding of QCD at the energy scales relevant for flavourphysics, and hence make an important contribution to the accurate interpretation of any observed BSM anomalies.

5

4 QCD studies

4.1 PDF inputs

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 ( GeV )min

jjM

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

Rat

io to

bas

elin

e

=14 TeVsDijet production @ HL-LHC

PDF4LHC15

+ HL-LHC (scen A)

+ HL-LHC (scen C)

=14 TeVsDijet production @ HL-LHC

Figure 6. Reduction of the PDF uncertainty inthe predicted cross section for jets. From Ref. [1].

All hard production processes at the LHC start from a partonic colli-sion, and their rate is determined by the PDFs. The knowledge of thePDFs is required to extract fundamental couplings from cross-sectionmeasurements (e.g. Higgs couplings from Higgs production rates), orfrom distributions (e.g. sin2

θeff from forward-backward asymmetriesin Z0 → `+`−). PDFs are also needed to predict the tails of SM dis-tributions at large Q2 (e.g. the jet pT spectrum or the Drell-Yan (DY)mass distribution at large di-lepton mass), to probe the existence of newphysics at high scales.

Today’s knowledge of PDFs will be improved at the HL-LHC bymeasuring a range of SM processes with jets, top quarks, photons andEW gauge bosons in the final state. The use of LHCb data, and access tolarge rapidities in ATLAS and CMS, will enhance the PDF sensitivity ofthese measurements. In the invariant mass region M > 100 GeV, the HL-LHC can improve the PDF uncertainties by a factorbetween 2 and 4, depending on the dominant partonic process and on the scenario for the systematic errors [1]. Two scenarios,A and C, were assumed, with a reduction by a factor of 2 and 5, respectively, of the experimental cross-section systematicsrelative to Run 2. These improvements will feed into improved theoretical predictions for a range of phenomenologicallyrelevant processes both within and beyond the SM. As an example, Fig. 6 shows the impact of HL-LHC PDF data on theuncertainties for dijet production rates. For the gg→ H process, the PDF systematics will be reduced to below 2%. Moreexamples of the impact of these “ultimate" HL-LHC PDFs are discussed in Sect. 2.2. We also notice that high precision ofcross-section measurements rely on further improvements in the determination of the integrated luminosity. For the HL-LHC,high precision luminosity detectors are currently being designed. Refined analysis techniques for the van der Meer scans, andnovel approaches, such as the measurement of fiducial Z0 boson production rates exploiting in-situ efficiency determination,can lead to further advances towards the percent level.

4.2 High-Q2 processesStudies of jet production at HL-LHC show that the experimental uncertainty on the cross-section measurements in the jet pTrange of 0.1–3 TeV, dominated by the jet energy scale, can be reduced to a 2.5−5% level. This is a factor of 2 improvementwith respect to Run 2 data, thanks to the large statistics available from data for the calibration at high pT . Inclusive jet anddi-jet samples in a central rapidity range will respectively extend the reach in jet pT from 3.5 TeV in Run-2 up to about 5 TeV,and the dijet invariant mass (m j j) from 9 TeV in Run-2 up to about 11 TeV.

Similar studies for inclusive production of isolated-photons (in association with a jet) show an extension of the kinematicreach from 1.5 TeV (mγ− jet = 3.3 TeV) in Run-2 to about ET = 3.5 TeV (mγ− jet = 7 TeV). Measurements of jet and photonproduction at the HL-LHC will therefore probe QCD perturbation theory at unprecedented energy scales. The combinedreduction in experimental, theoretical and PDF systematics will also significantly increase the sensitivity to possible newphysics.

5 Searches for new physics at high massThe HL-LHC will offer new possibilities to test many BSM scenarios, motivated by long-standing problems such as EWnaturalness, dark matter (DM), the flavour problem, neutrino masses, the strong CP problem, and baryogenesis. All these newphysics manifestations predict the existence of new particles, which can be searched for at HL-LHC profiting from the muchlarger statistics, slightly higher energy (14 TeV), and upgraded detectors. We highlight a subset of key results, selected among alarge number of studies for different new physics scenarios [4]. All quoted exclusion (discovery) reaches refer to 95% CL (5σ ).

5.1 SupersymmetryThe extension of the kinematic reach for supersymmetry (SUSY) searches at the HL-LHC is reflected foremost in the sensitivityto EW states, including sleptons, but also for gluinos and squarks. Studies under various hypothesis were made [3], includingprompt and long-lived SUSY particle decays. Wino-like (w) chargino pair production processes are studied consideringdilepton final states. Masses up to 840 (660) GeV can be excluded (discovered) for charginos decaying as χ

±1 →W (∗)χ0

1 , inR-parity conserving scenarios with χ0

1 as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The results extend the mass reach obtainedwith 80 fb−1 of 13 TeV pp collisions by about 500 GeV, and extend beyond the LEP limit by almost an order of magnitude.Compressed SUSY spectra are theoretically well motivated but are among the most challenging scenarios experimentally, and

6

Figure 7. Left: Expectedexclusion/discovery reachfrom the disappearing track(yellow) and dilepton (blue)searches in the(∆m(χ±1 , χ0

1 ), m(χ±1 )) massplane. Right:Exclusion/discoverycontours for τ pairproduction in the (mτ ,mχ0

1)

mass plane. From Ref. [3].100 200 300 400 500

) [GeV]±

1χ∼m(

1

10) [G

eV]

0 1χ∼ ,± 1χ∼ m

(∆

All limits at 95% CL = 200µ, -1=14 TeV, 3000 fbs

ATLAS Simulation Preliminary

> 0µ = 5, β production, tan0

1χ∼ ±

1χ∼,

±

1χ∼ ±

1χ∼,

0

1χ∼ 0

2χ∼, ±

1χ∼ 0

2χ∼ Pure Higgsino

discoveryσ5Expected limitDisappearing tracksSoft leptonsLEP2 exclusionTheory

[GeV]τ∼m200 400 600 800

[GeV

]10 χ∼

m

100

200

300

400

500

Expected exclusion 95 % CL uncertainty on exclusion σ1

σExpected discovery 5

(YR18 syst. uncert.)L

τ∼ = mR

τ∼ , mτ∼τ∼ →pp

Phase-2 SimulationCMS (14 TeV)-13 ab

are barely covered by the Run 2 analyses. HL-LHC searches for low momentum leptons will be sensitive to χ± masses upto 350 GeV for ∆m(χ±1 , χ0

1 )≈ 5 GeV, and to mass splittings between 0.8 and 50 GeV, thus bringing significant new reach tohiggsino (h) models. Similar search techniques can also be used to target pair produced e and µ in compressed scenarios. If∆m(χ±1 , χ0

1 )< 1 GeV, charginos can decay after the inner layers of the pixel detectors. Results for prompt (one of the analyses)and long-lived charginos (see below) are shown in Fig. 7 (left).

Dedicated searches for sleptons, characterised by the presence of at least one hadronically-decaying τ and missing ET , willbe sensitive to currently unconstrained pair-produced τ: exclusion (discovery) for mτ up to around 700 (500) GeV can beachieved under realistic assumptions of performance and systematic uncertainties, as shown in Fig. 7 (right).

In the strong SUSY sector, HL-LHC will probe gluino masses up to 3.2 TeV, with discovery reach around 3 TeV, in R-parityconserving scenarios and under a variety of assumptions on the g prompt decay mode. This is about 0.8-1.0 TeV beyond theRun 2 g mass reach for 80 fb−1. Pair-production of top squarks (t1) has been studied assuming t1→ t χ0

1 and fully hadronicfinal states with large missing ET . Top squarks can be discovered (excluded) up to masses of 1.25 (1.7) TeV for m

(χ0

1)∼ 0,

i.e. ∆m(t1, χ01 ) � mt , under realistic uncertainty assumptions. This extends by about 700 GeV the reach of Run 2 for 80 fb−1.

The reach in mt degrades for larger χ01 masses. If ∆m(t1, χ

01 ) ∼ mt , the discovery (exclusion) reach is 650 (850) GeV.

5.2 Dark Matter and Dark SectorsCompressed SUSY scenarios, as well as other DM models, can be targeted using signatures such as mono-jet, mono-photonand vector-boson-fusion (VBF) production. Mono-photon and VBF events allow targeting an EW fermionic triplet (minimalDM), equivalent to a wino-like signature in SUSY, for which there is no sensitivity in Run 2 searches with 36 fb−1. Massesof the χ0

1 up to 310 GeV (130 GeV) can be excluded by the mono-photon (VBF) channel, with improvements possible iftheoretical uncertainties are reduced. Projections for searches for a mono-Z signature, with Z→ `+`− recoiling against missingET , have been interpreted in terms of models with a spin-1 mediator, and models with two Higgs doublets and an additionalpseudo-scalar mediator a coupling to DM (2HDMa). The exclusion is expected for mediator masses up to 1.5 TeV, and forDM and pseudo-scalar masses up to 600 GeV, a factor of ∼ 3 better than the 36 fb−1 Run-2 constraints. The case of 2HDMamodels is complemented by 4-top final states, searched for in events with two same-charge leptons, or with at least threeleptons. While searches using 36 fb−1 Run 2 data have limited sensitivity considering the most favourable signal scenarios(e.g. tanβ = 0.5), HL-LHC will probe possible evidence of a signal with tanβ = 1, mH = 600 GeV and mixing angle ofsinθ = 0.35, assuming ma masses between 400 GeV and 1 TeV, and will allow exclusion for all 200 GeV< ma < 1 TeV. ForDM produced in association with bottom or top quarks, where a (pseudo)scalar mediator decays to a DM pair, the HL-LHCwill improve the sensitivity to mediator masses by a factor of 3-8 relative to the Run 2 searches with 36 fb−1.

A very interesting scenario in the search for portals between the visible and dark sectors is that of the dark photon A′.As shown in Fig. 8, prospects for an inclusive search for dark photons decaying into muon or electron pairs indicate thatthe HL-LHC could cover a large fraction of the theoretically favored ε−mA′ parameter space, where ε is the kinetic mixingbetween the photon and the dark photon and mA′ the dark photon mass.

5.3 ResonancesStudies of resonance searches have been performed in a variety of final states and are documented in Ref. [3]. A sample ofthese results is presented here. A right-handed gauge boson with SM couplings, decaying as WR→ bt(→ b`ν), can be excluded(discovered) for masses up to 4.9 (4.3) TeV, 1.8 TeV larger than the 36 fb−1 Run 2 result. For a sequential SM (SSM) W ′ bosonin `ν final states (`= e,µ), the mass reach improves by more than 2 TeV w.r.t. the Run 2 (80 fb−1) reach, and by more than1 TeV w.r.t. 300 fb−1. The HL-LHC bound will be MW ′ > 7.9 TeV, with discovery potential up to 7.7 TeV. Projections for

7

10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101

mA′ [GeV]

10−12

10−11

10−10

10−9

10−8

10−7

10−6

10−5

10−4

ε2

π0

η

current limits

LHCb µµ

50 fb−1 D∗0

300 fb−1 D∗0 50 fb−1 µµ

300 fb−1 µµ

Figure 8. Current limits (grey),current LHCb limits (black band), andproposed future experimental reach(coloured bands) on A′ parameterspace. The arrows indicate theavailable mass range from lightmeson decays into e+e−γ . FromRef. [3].

Figure 9. (Left)Expected (dashed blackline) upper limit on crosssection times branchingfraction σ ×B as afunction of the Z′ bosonmass. (Right) Projectedsensitivity to a vectorleptoquark modeladdressing the B decayanomalies. From Ref. [3].

[TeV]Z’m3 4 5 6 7 8

B [p

b]σ

-710

-610

-510

-410

-310

-210

-110 Expected limitσ 1±Expected σ 2±Expected

ψZ’

Simulation PreliminaryATLAS

ll→Z’

-1 = 14 TeV, 3000 fbs

Result

-136fb

1σ, 1706.07808

pp→ττ,1609.07138

pp→UU*CMS,1805.10228

pp→UU*HE-LHCproj.

pp→UU*

CMSsim,3ab

-1

pp→ττ

HL-LHC proj.

ℒ ⊃ gU Q3 L3 U

1 2 3 4 5 60.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

MU (TeV)g U

������ �� ����� ��� �-���������

searches for the SSM and E6 Z′ bosons, Z′SSM and Z′ψ , in the dilepton final state predict exclusion (discovery) up to massesof 6.5 TeV (6.4 TeV) and 5.8 TeV (5.7 TeV), respectively. The 36 fb−1 Run-2 exclusion for Z′SSM (Zψ ) is 4.5 TeV (3.8 TeV),expected to grow to 5.4 TeV (4.8 TeV) after 300 fb−1 (Fig. 9). Using top-tagging, a Randall–Sundrum Kaluza–Klein gluondecaying to tt is expected to be excluded (discovered) up to 6.6 TeV (5.7 TeV) extending the 36 fb−1 bounds by over 2 TeV.

Models related to the apparent flavour anomalies in B decays suggest the presence of heavy resonances, either Z′ orleptoquarks (LQ), coupling to second and/or third generation SM fermions. The HL-LHC will be able to cover a significantportion of the parameter space allowed by flavor constraints, with an exclusion reach up to 4 TeV for the Z′, depending onthe structure and size of the Z′ couplings. Pair produced scalar LQs coupling to µ (τ) and b-quarks, on the other hand, canbe excluded up to masses of 2.5 (1.5) TeV, depending on assumptions on couplings. In Fig. 9 (right) we show the parameterspace of a vector LQ model addressing B decay flavor anomalies (see Section 3.2) that can be covered with dedicated HL-LHChigh-pT searches. Finally, prospect studies for third generation LQ in the tµ and tτ channels deliver mass limits (discoverypotential) increased by 500 (400) GeV with respect to 36 fb−1, with discovery prospects in the tµ channel up to 1.7 TeV.

5.4 Long-lived particlesIn addition to the significant expansion of expected luminosity, new detector upgrades will enable searches in the long-livedparticle regime. Muons displaced from the beamline, such as found in SUSY models with µ lifetimes of cτ > 25 cm, can beexcluded at 95% CL. New fast timing detectors will also be sensitive to displaced photon signatures arising from long livedparticles in the 0.1 < cτ < 300 cm range.

Prospect studies for disappearing tracks searches using simplified models of χ± production lead to exclusions of charginomasses up to m(χ±1 ) = 750 GeV (1100 GeV) for lifetimes of 1 ns for the h (w) hypothesis. When considering the lifetimepredicted by theory, h (w) masses up to 300 (830) GeV can be excluded. This improves the 36 fb−1 Run 2 mass reach by afactor of 2-3. The discovery reach is reduced to 160 GeV (h) and 500 GeV (w), due to the loss in acceptance at low lifetime(0.2 ns), but sensitivity is expected to be recovered with dedicated optimisations. Results are shown in Fig. 7 (left).

Several studies are available also for long-lived g. As an example, we expect a 1 TeV extension of the 36 fb−1 Run 2 massreach, for models with g lifetimes τ > 0.1 ns, and an exclusion of mg up to 3.4-3.5 TeV. Finally, the signature of long-lived darkphotons decaying to displaced muons can be reconstructed with dedicated algorithms and is sensitive to very small couplingε2 ∼ 10−14 for masses of the dark photons between 10 and 35 GeV. Complementarities in long-lived particle searches andenhancements in sensitivity might be achieved if new proposals for detectors and experiments such as Mathusla, FASER,Codex-B, MilliQan and LHeC are realized in parallel to the HL-LHC.

8

6 Forward PhysicsCentral exclusive production (CEP) corresponds to the production of a central system X , and nothing else, with two outgoingintact protons: pp→ p + X + p. Such a process may be mediated by photon exchange, with the elastic photon emissionvertex leaving the protons intact. A range of SM (e.g. X = γγ , Zγ , ZZ, ` ¯) and BSM states (e.g. X = axion–like particles,monopoles, SUSY particles) may be produced in this way. CEP therefore allows one to use the LHC as a high-energy γγ

collider, operating in a clean and well understood environment. These processes, in particular at higher mass, have small crosssections, and their detection requires taking data during the during standard LHC runs, with tagged protons. The HL-LHCstatistics will make it possible to extend the sensitivity to higher masses and lower cross sections, increasing the discoverypotential. New physics manifestations can be described by an effective Lagrangian with high-dimension operators. Amongthese operators, pure photon dimension-eight operators in the γγγγ interaction can be probed in pp→ p(γγ → γγ)p reactions.With proton tagging, one can probe γγ → γγ collisions, with the invariant mass of the γγ system ranging from about 300 GeVto 2 TeV. The expected bounds on the most sensitive anomalous couplings will be reduced by a factor of 5 at the HL-LHCcompared to 300 fb−1, without using time-of-flight information, and can be further improved by 20% with a 10 ps time-of-flightresolution. Similarly, at the HL-LHC we can study the anomalous γγ→ γZ scattering that can be probed in pp→ p(γγ→ γZ)preactions. The sensitivity on the best probed anomalous coupling can be reduced by a factor of 10 compared to 300 fb−1. Thetime-of-flight measurement can further improve the expected bounds by a factor of ∼ 2 .

7 High-density QCD with heavy-ion and proton beamsExperiments with heavy-ion collisions at the LHC study strongly-interacting matter (“QCD matter”) under the most extremeconditions of density and temperature accessible in the laboratory. The main focus at the LHC is learning how collectivephenomena and macroscopic properties, involving many degrees of freedom, emerge from strong-interaction physics in thenon-perturbative regime at the microscopic (quark, gluon) level. The high-luminosity heavy-ion programme starts in Run 3,when the peak Pb–Pb luminosity will be ∼ 10× the original LHC design value. The integrated luminosity target of 13 nb−1

by the end of Run 4 represents a seven-fold increase with respect to Run 2. This programme offers the unique opportunity toinvestigate high-density QCD and the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) towards four main goals:

1. Characterizing the macroscopic long-wavelength properties of the QGP with unprecedented precision.2. Accessing the microscopic parton dynamics underlying QGP properties.3. Developing a unified picture of QCD particle production from small (pp) to larger (pA and AA) systems.4. Probing nuclear PDFs in a broad (x, Q2) range, searching for the possible onset of parton saturation.

Each goal comprises a large set of new or highly-improved measurements, enabled by the detector upgrades of the fourexperiments, and requiring the updated programme (systems and luminosity targets) outlined at the end of the section. At thesame time, a strong collaboration between theoretical and experimental groups leading to a sustained development on theoryand modelling is crucial for achieving these goals. A subset of these measurements is described in the following.Macroscopic properties of the QGP. It is by now well established that the long-wavelength behaviour of hot and dense QCDmatter can be described in terms of fluid- and thermo-dynamic concepts. This behaviour is experimentally investigated usingmeasurements of low-momentum (< 5 GeV/c) hadron production and flow patterns, as well as of electromagnetic radiation.Among the macroscopic properties of the QGP that will strongly benefit from the large luminosity increase, the temperature willbe, for the first time at the LHC, determined with an accuracy of about 20% by measuring thermal radiation. Another notableexample is the heavy-quark diffusion coefficient 2πT Ds, which at a temperature T of 1–2× the QCD critical temperature Tcwill be constrained with a 2× improved accuracy, as shown in Fig. 10, using measurements of the production and flow ofseveral charm meson and baryon species.Microscopic structure and inner workings of the QGP. For the first time the nature of the effective constituents of QCDmatter and its characteristic length scales can be studied experimentally with high precision. Hard processes provide us withprobes that should resolve the scale of the constituents and test its inner workings, that is the microscopic-level (point-like)interactions. Multi-differential jet measurements are one of the main avenues for these investigations. These include the Z–jetrecoil measurements with 4× reduced uncertainties (see Fig. 11-left) and novel jet-substructure studies that are sensitive tothe details of energy-loss mechanisms and to the medium degrees of freedom at small length scales. The aforementionedheavy-quark diffusion studies probe instead the degrees of freedom at larger length scales. Measurements of the production ofcharmonium and bottomonium states with different binding energies give access to a well-defined set of length scales for thestudy of the QCD potential and its modification in a colour-deconfined medium via the characterization of the mechanisms ofmelting and regeneration.QCD dynamics from small to larger systems. Recent discoveries of collective patterns and strangeness content in particleproduction in pp and p–Pb collisions question both the view of pp collisions as a superposition of quasi-independent parton–parton scatterings and the view of nucleus–nucleus (large volume) collisions as a required precondition for a hydrodynamic

9

and opaque medium to form. High-precision studies of rare probes in small systems motivate an extension of the originalprogramme, to address outstanding open questions on the existence of a medium in these collisions and on the possibleformulation of a common picture of QCD multi-particle dynamics across all collision systems. Example studies that requirevery large integrated luminosity in both high-multiplicity pp and p–Pb collisions include the comparison of heavy-quark andquarkonium flow in small and large systems (see Fig. 11-middle) and the searches for thermal radiation and partonic energy loss(see Fig. 11-right, using hadron-jet recoil to search for a shift in jet momentum). The latter is an outstanding puzzle because theobserved collective patterns require final-state interactions that should also lead to energy loss. The study of pp, p–Pb as well asO–O collisions promises to solve this puzzle.

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5T/Tc

0

5

10

15

20

2TD

s

pT = 0 GeV/c

priorcurrent exp, 90%C.Rfuture exp, 90%C.R

Figure 10. Charm diffusion coefficient asa function of temperature relative to thecritical temperature Tc (ALICE and CMScombined) [5].

Nuclear parton densities and search for saturation. High-luminosity p–Pband Pb–Pb runs, which also produce γ–Pb collisions, will provide highly-improved precision and kinematic coverage for measurements of the PDFsin nuclei, from the high-Q2 and x∼ 10−3–10−1 region, with Z, W , dijets, andtop quarks, down to the presently-uncovered small-x region below 10−4 withforward Drell-Yan and photons, where non-linear QCD evolution and partonphase-space saturation could set in. For example, W asymmetry measurementsas a function of rapidity in p–Pb collisions are expected to reduce by 3–4× the un-certainty on the modification of the gluon PDF at x = 10−2 and Q2 = 100 GeV2.These studies, besides their intrinsic interest, are crucial inputs for the initialconditions of heavy-ion collisions and they contribute to motivating the proposalfor an extension of the p–Pb programme.To accomplish this physics programme, the following colliding systems andluminosities are proposed.

• Pb–Pb (A = 208) at√

sNN = 5.5 TeV (research goals 1 and 2): Lint =13 nb−1 and pp reference at the same energy• p–Pb at

√sNN = 8.8 TeV (research goals 3 and 4): 1.2 pb−1 ATLAS/CMS,

0.6 pb−1 ALICE/LHCb, and pp reference• pp at

√s = 14 TeV (research goal 3): 200 pb−1 in low-pileup conditions

allows one to study extreme multiplicity events as large as 15× the average multiplicity, being equivalent to mid-peripheral(60–65% centrality) Pb–Pb collisions• O–O (A = 16) at

√sNN = 7 TeV (research goal 3): a one week period, also

accommodating a short p–O run to provide crucial input for cosmic-rayparticle production models

Furthermore, it is pointed out that collisions of lighter ions, e.g. Ar–Ar (A = 40), represent an interesting case for extendingthe heavy-ion programme in Run 5. This would enable a > 10× increase of the nucleon–nucleon luminosity, giving access tonovel observables in the sectors of hard and electromagnetic probes of the QGP.

T

Z/pT

jet = pjZx

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

jZdx

jZdN

ZN1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2PbPb, 0-30 %Current Unc.Projected Unc.

JEWEL

Hybrid2 TαdE/dx 3 TαdE/dx

Strong Coupling

GLVg = 2.0g = 2.2

> 60 GeV/cZT

p

jet R = 0.3Tanti-k

> 30 GeV/cjet

Tp

| < 1.6jetη|π

87 >

jZφ∆

= 5.02 TeVNNs -1PbPb 10 nb

CMS Projection

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

)c (GeV/T

p

0.1−

0.05−

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.22v ALICE Upgrade Projection

-1 = 5.02 TeV, 10 nbNNsPb-Pb -1 = 8.16 TeV, 500 nbNNsp-Pb

−µ+µ → ψInclusive J/

< 4yPb-Pb 20-40%, 2.5 <

< 3.53yp-Pb 0-20%, 2.03 <

< -2.96yp-Pb 0-20%, -4.46 <

Transport Model (TAMU)

Pb-Pb 20-40%

yp-Pb 2-10%, mid-

ALI−SIMUL−312973

Tra

nspo

rted

ene

rgy

(MeV

/c)

4000

6000

8000

10000

Pb-Pb 0-10%JHEP09(2015)170

Measurement HL-LHC Projection

Semi-inclusive hadron-jet correlations ALICE

-1 = 200 pbint = 14 TeV Lspp -1 = 0.5 pbint = 5 TeV LNNsp-Pb

Stat. unc. only

0

200

400

600

p-Pb 0-20%PLB783(2018)95

p-Pb0-5% pp

>ch

5-7 <N

pp>

ch7-10 <N

pp>ch10-12 <N

ALI−SIMUL−312944

Figure 11. Z–jet momentum imbalance in Pb–Pb (CMS); J/ψ elliptic flow in p–Pb and Pb–Pb (ALICE); limit on jetmomentum shift from hadron–jet recoil in Pb–Pb and in high-multiplicity pp and p–Pb collisions (ALICE). From Ref. [5].

10

ADDENDUM OF "The physics potential of HL-LHC":list of contributors to the Workshop reports

Contributing authors: R. Abdul Khalek1,2, A. Aboubrahim3, J. Aichelin4, S. Akar5, A. Albert6, J. Alimena7, S. Alioli8,B. C. Allanach9, M. Altakach10, W. Altmannshofer11, A. Alves12, S. Amoroso13, N. Andari14, L. Anderlini15, J. K. Anders16,A. Andronic17,18, A. Angerami19, L. Aperio Bella20, L. Apolinário21, J. Y. Araz22, A. Arbey23, F. Archilli2, F. Arleo24,A. J. Armbruster20, N. Armesto25, R. Arnaldi26, M. Arslandok27, C. Asawatangtrakuldee28, A. Azatov29,30, P. Azzi31,I. Babounikau28, J. Baglio32, S. Bailey33, R. Bailhache34, M. J. Baker35, E. Bakos36, A. Bakshi37, C. Baldenegro38, F. Balli39,S. Banerjee40, E. L. Barberio41, D. Barducci30, A. Barker37, O. Baron42, G. Barone43, L. Barranco Navarro44, W. Barter45,A. E. Barton46, S. A. Bass47, M. Bauer40, C. Bautista48, A. Bay49, P. Bechtle50, K. Becker51, C. Bedda52, N. K. Behera53,F. Bellini20, R. Bellwied54, I. Belyaev55, A. Benaglia56, M. Bengala21, S. Benson2, A. Beraudo26, N. Berger57, C. Bertella58,A. Bethani59, A. Betti50, M. Bettler60, D. Bhatia61, R. Bhattacharya62, R. Bi63, C. Bierlich64, S. Bifani65, A. Birnkraut66,F. Bishara28, S. Biswas67, T. Blake68, F. Blekman69, D. Bloch70, K. Blum20, S. Blusk71, A. Bodek72, D. Bogavac73,P. Bokan74, O. Bondu75, M. Bonvini76, M. Boonekamp39, E. Boos77, L. Borgonovi78,79, A. Borissov17, M. Borsato27,C. Borschensky32, S. Boselli80, J. D. Bossio Sola81, C. Bozzi20,82, A. Bragagnolo31,83, S. Braibant-Giacomelli78,79,P. Braun-Munzinger18, J. Brod5, J. Brodzicka84, R. Bruce20, E. Bruna26, G. E. Bruno85, G. Buchalla86, S. Bufalino87,M. K. Bugge88, A. J. Buras89, D. Buttazzo90, G. Cacciapaglia23, L. Cadamuro91, C. Caillol92, A. Calandri93,94, A. CalderonTazon95, S. Camarda20, D. A. Camargo96, F. Campanario97, M. Campanelli98, J. M. Campbell99, A. Canepa99, Q.-H. Cao100, F. Caola40, M. Capozi101, A. Carbone78,79, M. Carena99,102, C. M. Carloni Calame103, L. Carminati104,105,A. Carmona106, E. Carquin107, S. Carrá104,105, C. A. Carrillo Montoya108, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira109, A. CastanedaHernandez110, F. L. Castillo44, J. Castillo Castellanos111, O. Cata112, V. Cavaliere43, D. Cavalli104,105, F. R. Cavallo79,C. Cecchi113,114, A. Celis115, M. Cepeda20,116, A. Cerri117, F. Cerutti118,119, G. S. Chahal40,45, M. Chala40, E. Chapon20,B. Chargeishvili120, J. Charles121, M. Charles122, C. Charlot24, R. Chatterjee123, G. Chaudhary124, S. V. Chekanov125,K. F. Chen126, S.-L. Chen127, T. Chen128, X. Chen35, Y. Chen20, Z. Chen129, H. J. Cheng130, C. Cheshkov23, J. T. Childers125,A. S. Chisholm20,65, V. Chobanova131, M. Chrzaszcz20, T. Chujo132, X. Cid Vidal131, L. Cieri56, G. Ciezarek20, M. Cirelli133,V. Cirigliano134, Z. Citron135, M. Ciuchini136, H. Cliff60, J. Cogan93, G. Colangelo137, O. Colegrove138, R. Contino139,J. G. Contreras Nuno140, A. Contu141, G. Corcella142, M. Corradi76,143, M. J. Costa44, R. Covarelli26,144, G. Cowan145,N. Craig138, A. Crivellin146, J. M. Cruz-Martinez105, L. Cunqueiro Mendez147, D. Curtin148, M. Czakon6, T. Dahms149,A. Dainese31, G. D’Ambrosio150, N. P. Dang151, L. Darmé152, P. Das61, A. Davis59, S. Dawson43, O. A. De AguiarFrancisco20, A. Deandrea153, J. de Blas31,83, K. De Bruyn20, S. De Curtis15, N. De Filippis85,154, M. Deile20, W. Dekens155,156,C. Delaere75, H. De la Torre157, M. Delcourt75, L. de Lima158, F. Deliot39, M. Della Morte159, L. Delle Rose160,M. Delmastro57, D. Del Re76,161, H. Dembinski162, A. Demela104,105, S. Demers163, A. Denner164, D. d’Enterria20,L. D’Eramo165, D. Derkach166, R. Dermisek167, F. Derue165, U. De Sanctis168,169, A. De Santo117, O. Deschamps170,S. Descotes-Genon171, F. Dettori172, N. Dev173, A. De Wit28, B. Dey127, A. Di Canto20, L. Di Ciaccio57, W. K. DiClemente174, S. Dildick175, R. Di Nardo176, M. Dinardo8,56, P. Di Nezza142, P. Dini56, S. Di Vita177, A. F. Dobrin20,D. Dominguez Damiani28, M. Donadelli178, B. Dönigus34, J. Donini170, M. D’Onofrio172, L. A. F. do Prado48,111, F. Dordei141,M. Dorigo20,29, A. dos Reis179, D. Du180, X. Du181, A. Dubla18, L. Dudko77, L. Dufour2, M. Dührssen20, M. Dumancic182,A. K. Duncan183, M. Dünser20, A. Durglishvili120, G. Durieux28,184, S. Dutta62, V. Dutta138, M. Dyndal28, A. Dziurda84,J. Ebadi185, O. Eberhardt44, U. Eitschberger66, J. Elias-Miro20, J. Ellis20,109,186, K. El Morabit187, C. Englert183, C. Escobar44,A. Esposito188, M. Estevez189, L. Fabbietti190, S. Falke57, A. Falkowski171, L. Fanó113,114, M. Farina191, D. A. Faroughy192,S. Farry172, G. Fedi90, A. Ferrari193, R. B. Ferreira De Faria21, E. G. Ferreiro25, G. Ferrera104,105, G. Ferretti194, A. Ferroglia195,J. Fiaschi196, T. M. Figy128, K. D. Finelli197, M. C. N. Fiolhais198,199, F. Fionda200, S. Fiorendi8,56, F. Fiori90,139, O. Fischer201,C. Fitzpatrick20, T. Flacke202, M. Flechl203, R. Fleischer2, F. Fleuret24,204, S. Floerchinger205, S. Folgueras206, M. Fontana20,E. Fontanesi78,79, P. J. Fox99, P. Francavilla90,165, R. Franceschini136,207, E. Franco76, E. D. Frangipane118,208, M. Frank22,G. Frattari76,143, R. Frederix190, M. Freytsis209, S. Frixione210, D. Frizzell211, E. Fuchs182, B. Fuks133,212, E. Gabriel145,A. Gabrielli118,119, E. Gabrielli213, S. Gadatsch20, B. Galhardo21,198, M. Gallinaro21, P. Gambino26, E. Gámiz214, A. Gandrakota215,J. Gao216, Y. Gao172, F. M. Garay Walls217, J. E. García Navarro44, J. García Pardiñas35, J. R. Gaunt20, T. Gehrmann35,A. Gehrmann-De Ridder94, M. H. Genest10, L. S. Geng218, E. Gersabeck59, M. Gersabeck59, T. Gershon68, Y. Gershtein215,T. Ghosh219, G. Giacalone220, S. Giagu76,143, A. Giammanco75, A. Gilbert20, D. Giljanovic24,221, G. F. Giudice20, F. Giuli168,R. Glein222, V. V. Gligorov165, E. W. N. Glover40, J. Goh224, R. Gomez-Ambrosio40, G. Gómez-Ceballos63, D. Gonçalves225,M. Gonzalez-Alonso20, M. D. Goodsell223, M. Gorbahn226, S. Gori11, P.-B. Gossiaux4, E. Gouveia21, M. Gouzevitch23,P. Govoni8,56, C. Goy57, I. Grabowska-Bold227, G. Graziani15, M. Grazzini35, V. Greco228, B. Greenberg215, A. Greljo20,A. Grelli229, L. Grillo59, K. Grimm230, B. Grinstein156, A. V. Gritsan231, A. Grohsjean28, C. Grojean28, F. Grosa26,J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus20, Y. Grossman232, J. Gu233, D. Guadagnoli234, R. Gugel51, M. Guilbaud20, T. Gunji235, P. Gunnellini236,F.-K. Guo237,238, R. S. Gupta40, A. Gurrola239, G. Gustavino211, C. Guyot39, V. Guzey240,241,242, L. Guzzi8,56, C. Gwenlan33,C. B. Gwilliam172, S. Ha243, M. Haacke217, Y. Haddad45, C. Hadjidakis244, U. Haisch101, J. Haller236, B. Hamilton42,

1

G. N. Hamity245, T. Han225, L. A. Harland-Lang33, R. Harnik99, P. F. Harrison68, S. Hassani246, D. Hayden157, M. He247,M. Heikinheimo248, S. Heinemeyer95,249,250, G. Heinrich101, U. Heintz251, I. Helenius32,240, C. Helsens20, M. Herndon92,D. Hill252, G. Hiller66, O. Hindrichs253, V. Hirschi94, A. Hoang254, S. Höche 255, K. Hoepfner6, J. M. Hogan251,256,S. Homiller43,257, Y. Huang130, P. Huo191, T. Hurth106, A. Huss20, O. Igonkina2,258, P. Ilten65, G. M. Innocenti20,63,V. Ippolito76,143, G. Isidori35, A. Ismail259, A. M. Iyer150, P. M. Jacobs260, S. Jäger117, S. Jahn162, Sa. Jain61, P. Janus227,L. Jeanty209, M. A. Jebramcik20,261, S. Jézéquel57, T. Jezo35, J. Jia262, M. John252, W. Johns239, D. Johnson20, S. P. Jones20,J. M. Jowett20, A. W. Jung37, H. Jung28, M. Jung149, N. Jurik252, M. Kado76,143,204, A. L. Kagan5, J. Kalinowski263,S. Kallweit8, A. Kalogeropoulos264, A. P. Kalweit20, J. F. Kamenik192,265, M. Kaplan63, D. Kar266, J. Karancsi267,268,A. Karlberg35, M. Karliner269, Y. Kats135, M. Kaur124, P. Keicher187, H. Keller6, M. Kenzie60, M. Kerner35, M. K. Khandoga39,B. Khanji20, A. Khanov270, H. Khanpour271, S. Khatibi272, A. Khukhunaishvili273, J. Kieseler20, B. Kim274, H. Kim275,J. H. Kim38, M. Kim276, M. S. Kim242, Y. G. Kim277, T. Kitahara278, M. Klasen196, S. Klein279, T. Klijnsma94, M. D. Klimek232,F. Kling280, M. Klusek-Gawenda84, M. Klute63, M. Knecht121, R. Kogler236, J. R. Komaragiri281, K. Köneke51, K. Kong38,P. Koppenburg2, A. Korytov91, N. Košnik192,265, J. Kozaczuk282, P. Kozow263, M. Krämer283, C. Krause99, F. Krauss284,J. Kremer227, M. Kreps68, J. Kretzschmar172, G. K. Krintiras75, F. Krizek285, J. Kroll174, E. Kryshen241, S. Kubota176,A. K. Kulesza196, S. Kulkarni203, A. Kurkela20,286, A. Kusina84, S. Lai74, V. S. Lang28, C. Langenbruch6, U. Langenegger146,J. Langford45, J. P. Lansberg244, T. Lari104,105, T. Latham68, B. Le41, R. Lea29, R. F. Lebed287, L. Lechner203, A. Ledovskoy288,C. A. Lee43, G. R. Lee200, L. Lee289, S. W. Lee274, Y.-J. Lee63, M. Leigh290, W. A. Leight13, D. Lelas76, K. J. C. Leney291,A. J. Lenz40, T. Lenz50, R. Leonardi113,114, O. Leroy93, R. Les292, I. M. Lewis38, B. Li293, C-Q. Li294, H. Li180, Q. Li295,T. Li296, W. Li129, Y. Li13, J. Lidrych28, S. Liebler297, F. Ligabue90,139, Z. Ligeti118, I. T. Lim9,118, K. Lin157, J. Lindert40,J. M. Lindert284, D. Liu125, J. Liu298, Y. Liu299,300, Z. Liu42,99, K. Lohwasser245, C. Loizides147, A. Long129, K. Long92,D. Lontkovskyi69, I. Low125,301, M. Low99, G. Luisoni101, E. Lunghi167, L. L. Ma180, D. Madaffari44, A.-M. Magnan45,F. Mahmoudi23, D. Majumder38, G. Majumder61, A. Malinauskas33, F. Maltoni302, S. Malvezzi56, G. Mancinelli93,M. Mancini69, P. Mandrik303, M. L. Mangano20, T. Mannel112, E. Manoni114, X. Marcano171, J. F. Marchand57, I. Marchesini69,G. Marchiori165, J. Margutti52, A. Marin18, A. C. Marini63, A. Mariotti69, M. Marjanovic170, D. Marlow264, C. Marquet304,A. Martin173, J. Martin Blanco24, J. Martin Camalich305,306, M. Martinelli20, D. Martínez Santos131, D. Martinez Santos131,F. Martinez Vidal44, S. Marzani210,307, D. Marzocca29, L. Massacrier244, A. Massironi20, A. Mastroserio85,308, K. T. Matchev91,309,R. D. Matheus48, J. Matias73, P. Matorras Cuevas35, O. Matsedonskyi182, A. Mauri35, E. Maurice24,204, C. Mayer84,K. Mazumdar61, M. McCullough20, E. F. McDonald41, A. E. Mcdougall41, J. A. Mcfayden20, C. Mcginn63, P. Meade257,J. Mejia Guisao310, B. Mele76, F. Meloni13, I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann28, P. M. Mendes Amaral Torres Lagarelhos21, P. Meridiani76,M. Merk2, C. Merlassino16, A. B. Meyer28, E. Michielin31, S. Mikhalcov311, P. Milenovic20,36, J. G. Milhano21, A. J. Miller176,V. Milosevic45, A. Milov182, K. Mimasu302, C. Mironov63, A. Mischke52, S. Mishima313, B. Mistlberger314, A. Mitov60,G. Mitselmakher91, L. Mittnacht106, M. Mlynarikova315, N. Mohammadi20, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi185, S. Mohapatra316,S. Mondal242,248, M. Mondragon317, P. F. Monni20, G. Montagna103,318, S. Monteil170, F. Monti8,56, M. J. Morello90,139,M. Moreno Llácer20, M. Moreno Llacer20, S. Moretti319,320, M. Morgenstern2, A. Mueck283, S. Mukhopadhyay321,M. Mulders20, C. Murphy322, M. Murray38, W. J. Murray68, P. Musella94, B. P. Nachman118,119, K. Nam323, M. Narain251,R. F. Naranjo Garcia13, M. Nardecchia20, P. Nason8,56, P. Nath3, J. Navarro-González44, M. Needham145, N. Neri104,105,M. Neubert324, S. Neubert27, O. Nicrosini103, U. Nierste201, J. Nieves44, K. Nikolopoulos65, Y. Nir182, A. Nisati76,143,T. Nitta325, J. M. No250, D. L. Noel60, J. Noronha-Hostler215, J. P. Ochoa-Ricoux217, D. P. O’Hanlon79, A. Ohlson27,H. Oide210,307, M. L. Ojeda292, V. A. Okorokov326, S. A. Olivares Pino217, F. Olness291, A. Onofre327, G. Ortona24,E. Oset44, P. Owen35, O. Ozcelik21,328, P. Paakkinen240, S. Pagan Griso118,119, D. Pagani190, E. Palencia Cortezon206,F. Palla90, C. Palmer329, M. Palutan142, C. Pandini20, O. Panella113,114, P. Pani13, G. Panico15,160, L. Panizzi193, L. Panwar281,A. Papanastasiou60, D. Pappadopulo330, M. Pappagallo145, L. Pappalardo82,331, C. B. Park202, J. Park243, M. Park332,C. Parkes20,59, G. Passaleva15,20, E. Passemar167,333,334, M. Patel45, R. Patel222, F. Paucar-Velasquez215, H. Paukkunen240,242,J. Pazzini31,83, A. Pearce20, K. Pedro99, M. Pellen60, C.-C. Peng37, S. Perazzini20, M. M. Perego204, H. Pereira Da Costa111,D. Perepelitsa222, D. Peresunko303, M. Perfilov77, L. Pernie175, L. Perrozzi94, L. Pescatore49, M. Peters63, B. A. Petersen20,E. Petit10, A. A. Petrov335, G. Petrucciani20, N. E. Pettersson176, G. Piacquadio336, S. Piano29, F. Piccinini103, A. Pich44,M. Pieri156, M. Pierini20, T. Pierog337, A. Pilloni333,338, J. Pires339, S. Plätzer254, T. Plehn27, M.-A. Pleier43, M. Ploskon260,S. Plumari228, S. Pokorski263, F. Polci122, G. Polesello103, A. Policicchio76,143, A. D. Polosa76, A. Pomarol73, E. Ponton48,340,K. Potamianos13, C. J. Potter60, S. Pozzorini35, P. Pralavorio93, S. Prelovsek192,265,341, M. Presilla31,83, S. Prestel99,A. C. Price284, F. Prino26, K. Prokofiev342, J. Proudfoot125, M. Puccio26, A. Puig Navarro35, G. Punzi90,343, F. S. Queiroz344,J. Rademacker345, M. Rama90, G. Ramirez-Sanchez310, M. Ramsey-Musolf346, R. Rapp175, M. Rauch297, E. Re20,234,N. P. Readioff10, M. Reboud57, D. Redigolo347, K. Redlich348, A. Reimers236, L. Reina349, S. Resconi104,105, J. Reuter28,K. Reygers27, E. Reynolds65, P. Reznicek315, M. Riembau350, F. Rikkert190, M. Rimoldi16, C. L. Ristea351, F. Riva350,J. C. Rivera Vergara217, T. Rizzo255, P. Robbe204, T. Robens352, D. J. Robinson11,118, R. Roentsch20,353, C. Rogan38, J. Rojo2,F. Romeo239, N. Rompotis172, J. Rorie129, J. Rosiek263, J. Roskes231, J. L. Rosner298, A. Rossi31, R. Rosten73, C. Royon38,

2

J. T. Ruderman330, R. Ruiz40,75, J. Ruiz-Alvarez354, A. Rustamov18, M. Rybar316, J. A. Sabater Iglesias28, B. SafarzadehSamani117, S. Sagir251,355, N. Sahoo61, M. Saito356, S. Saito61, F. Sala28, C. Salazar354, R. Salerno24, P. H. Sales DeBruin357, C. A. Salgado131, A. Salvucci358, K. Sandeep359, J. Santiago360, R. Santo21, V. Sanz117, U. Sarica231, S. Sarkar62,A. Savin92, A. Savoy-Navarro111,361, R. Sawada356, S. Sawant61, S. Schacht362, H. Schäfer-Siebert297, A. C. Schaffer204,M. Schaumann20, B. Schenke43, I. Schienbein10, M. Schlaffer182, A. Schmidt6, B. Schneider99, R. Schoefbeck203, L. Schoeffel28,M. Schoenherr20, A. Schopper20, M. Schröder187, S. C. Schuler6, M. H. Schune204, M. Scodeggio13, E. Scott45, L. Scyboz101,C. D. Sebastiani76,143, J. Segovia363, M. Seidel20, S. Sekmen274, M. Selvaggi20, I. Selyuzhenkov18,326, H. Serodio64,N. Serra35, G. Servant28,364, L. Sestini31, B. Shakya11, B. Shams Es Haghi259, H.-S. Shao133, T. Shears172, P. Sheldon239,D. Shih215, S. Shin298,365, A. Shivaji302,366, A. M. Sickles367, M. Sievert215, P. Silva20, R. Silva Coutinho35, L. Silvestrini20,76,L. Simon283, F. Simonetto31,83, K. Sinha368, M. Sjodahl369, K. Skovpen69, T. Skwarnicki71, N. Smith99, M. Smizanska46,L. Soffi232, T. Song370, A. Soni43, Y. Soreq20,184, M. Spannowsky284, M. Spira146, D. Spitzbart203, M. Spousta315,P. Spradlin183, J. Stachel27, E. Stamou102, J. Stark10, P. Starovoitov371, T. Stefaniak28, P. Steinberg43, B. Stieger372,373,D. Stocco374, S. Stone71, S. Stracka90, D. M. Straub149, M. Strickland375, M. Strikman376, G. Strong21, J. Stupak211,M. J. Sullivan172, HJ. Sun377, J. Sun377, M. Sunder196, C. J. E. Suster378, A. P. Szczepaniak167, A. P. Szczepaniak333,334,M. Szleper152, K. Tackmann13, Y. Takahashi35, M. Takeuchi379, P. Tan99, J. D. Tapia Takaki38, S. Taroni173, K. Tatar63,R. Taus72, H. Teagle172, D. Teague92, K. Terashi356, C. Terrevoli31, J. Terron380, A. Tesi15, M. Testa142, F. Teubert20,A. Thamm20, V. Theeuwes220,381, E. Thomas20, L. A. Thomsen163, A. Timmins54, V. Tisserand170, S. T’Jampens57,S. Tkaczyk99, K. Tobioka349, P. Tornambe176, R. Torre20,210, F. Tramontano150,382, F. Tresoldi117, A. Tricoli43, S. Trogolo26,F. Trovato117, B. Trzeciak229, A. Trzupek84, D. Tsiakkouri383, S. Turchikhin384, K. A. Ulmer222, R. Ulrich337, F. C. Ungaro41,S. Uplap61, A. Uras23, A. Urbano29, E. Usai251, V. Vagnoni79, L. Van Doremalen52, D. van Dyk190, N. Vanegas354,M. van Leeuwen2,20,229, T. Vantalon28, J. van Tilburg2, L. Vaslin170, C. Vázquez Sierra2, L. Vecchi188, S. Vecchi82,R. Vega-Morales360, F. Veloso21, R. Venditti85, E. Venturini30, R. Venugopalan43, M. Verducci136,207, C. Vernieri255,M. Verweij239, M. Verzetti35, M. Vesterinen68, T. Vickey245, M. Vidal Marono75, J. Virto190,314, P. Vischia206, I. Vitev155,I. Vivarelli117, V. E. Vladimirov68, P. Volkov77, G. Vorotnikov77, N. Vranjes36, M. Vranjes Milosavljevic36, E. Vryonidou20,G. Vujanovic335,385, V. M. Walbrecht101, J. Walder46, D. Walker284, W. Walkowiak112, H. Waltari242,248,320, J. Wang91,L.-T. Wang298, R. Wang125, T. W. Wang63, W. Wang386, X. Wang259, N. Wardle45, D. R. Wardrope98, M. Weber387,M. S. Weber16, G. Weiglein28, C. Weiland40,259, S. Wertz75, M. Whitehead6, U. A. Wiedemann20, M. Wielers319, M. Wiesemann20,G. Wilkinson252, J. M. Williams63, M. R. J. Williams59, S. Willocq176, F. Wilson319, M. Winn204,388, M. A. Winn204,R. Wolf187, Y. Wu294, A. Wulzer20, M. Xiao231, R. Xiao37, Y. Xie127, D. Xu130, T. Xu14, Y. Xu47, S. Yacoob290, K. Yagyu389,H. T. Yang118,119, Z. Yang377, E. Yazgan130, R. Ye274, Z. Yin390, H. D. Yoo323, T. You60,80, F. Yu106,391, J. Zahreddine165,C. Zampolli20,79, G. Zanderighi20, H. J. C. Zanoli178, D. Zanzi20, M. Zaro2, O. Zenaiev28, S. C. Zenz45,392, D. Zeppenfeld297,G. Zevi Della Porta156, M. Zgubic252, C. Zhang130, J. Zhang180, L. Zhang299,377, W. Zhang251, X. Zhao43,75, Y.-M. Zhong393,M. Zhou262, Y. Zhou394, C. Zhu130, H. L. Zhu43,294, X. Zhuang130, R. Zlebcik28, J. Zobec75, F. N. Zubair20, J. Zupan5

Institutions: 1 Vrije U., Amsterdam, Dept. Phys. Astron., 2 Nikhef, Amsterdam, 3 Northeastern U., 4 CNRS, France, 5 U.Cincinnati, Dept. Phys., 6 RWTH Aachen, 7 Ohio State U., Columbus, 8 U. Milan Bicocca, Dept. Phys., 9 U. Cambridge,DAMTP, 10 LPSC, Grenoble, 11 UC, Santa Cruz, SCIPP, 12 U. Sao Paulo, 13 DESY, Zeuthen, 14 U. Paris-Saclay, 15 INFN,Florence, 16 U. Bern, LHEP, 17 U. Munster, Inst. Nucl. Phys., 18 GSI, Darmstadt, 19 LLNL, Livermore, 20 CERN, Geneva, 21

LIP, Lisbon, 22 Concordia U., Montreal, Dept. Phys., 23 IPNL, Lyon, 24 LLR, Palaiseau, 25 U. Santiago de Compostela, Dept.Part. Phys., 26 INFN, Turin, 27 U. Heidelberg, Phys.Inst., 28 DESY, Hamburg, 29 INFN, Trieste, 30 SISSA, Trieste, 31 INFN,Padua, 32 U. Tubingen, Dept. Phys., 33 U. Oxford, 34 Goethe U., Frankfurt, Inst. Nucl. Phys., 35 U. Zurich, Phys. Inst., 36 Inst.Phys., Belgrade, 37 Purdue U., West Lafayette, 38 U. Kansas, Lawrence, Dept. Phys. Astron., 39 IRFU, Saclay, DPP, 40 DurhamU., IPPP, 41 ARC, CoEPP, Melbourne, 42 U. Maryland, College Park, Dept. Phys., 43 Brookhaven Natl. Lab., Dept. Phys., 44

IFIC, Valencia, 45 Imperial Coll., London, Dept. Phys., 46 Lancaster U., Dept. Phys., 47 Duke U., 48 UNESP Sao Paulo, IFT, 49

EPFL, Lausanne, LPHE, 50 U. Bonn, Phys. Inst., 51 U. Freiburg, Inst. Phys., 52 Utrecht U., 53 Inha U., 54 U. Houston, Phys.Dept., 55 ITEP, Moscow, 56 INFN, Milan Bicocca, 57 LAPP, Annecy, 58 CAS, Beijing, 59 U. Manchester, Sch. Phys. Astron., 60

U. Cambridge, Cavendish Lab., 61 TIFR, Mumbai, DHEP, 62 Saha Inst. Nucl. Phys., Kolkata, 63 MIT, Cambridge, 64 Lund U.,THEP, 65 U. Birmingham, Sch. Phys. Astron., 66 Tech. U., Dortmund, Dept. Phys., 67 RKMVU, West Bengal, 68 U. Warwick,Dept. Phys., 69 Vrije U. Brussels, Dept. Phys. Astrophys., 70 IPHC, Strasbourg, 71 Syracuse U., Dept. Phys., 72 U. Rochester,73 U. Barcelona, IFAE, 74 U. Gottingen, II. Phys. Inst., 75 Cathol. U. Louvain, CP3, 76 INFN, Rome 1, 77 Moscow State U.,SINP, 78 U. Bologna, Dept. Phys., 79 INFN, Bologna, 80 U. Cambridge, 81 U. Buenos Aires, Dept. Fisica, 82 INFN, Ferrara, 83

U. Padua, Dept. Phys., 84 IFJ, Krakow, 85 INFN, Bari, 86 LMU Munich, 87 Polytech. Turin, DIFIS, 88 U. Oslo, Dept. Phys.,89 Tech. U., Munich, IAS, 90 INFN, Pisa, 91 U. Florida, Gainesville, Dept. Phys., 92 U. Wisconsin, Madison, Dept. Phys., 93

CPPM, Marseille, 94 ETH, Zurich, Dept. Phys., 95 IFCA, Santander, 96 U. Fed. Rio Grande do Norte, Intl. Inst. Phys., 97 U.Valencia, 98 U. Coll. London, Dept. Phys. Astron., 99 Fermilab, 100 Peking U., Beijing, Sch. Phys., 101 MPI Phys., Munich, 102

3

U. Chicago, 103 INFN, Pavia, 104 INFN, Milan, 105 U. Milan, Dept. Phys., 106 U. Mainz, PRISMA, 107 U. Tech. Federico SantaMaria, Valparaiso, 108 U. Andes, Bogota, Dept. Phys., 109 NICPB, Tallinn, 110 Sonora U., 111 IRFU, Saclay, 112 U. Siegen, Dept.Phys., 113 U. Perugia, Dept. Phys., 114 INFN, Perugia, 115 LMU Munich, Dept. Phys., 116 CIEMAT, Madrid, 117 U. Sussex,Brighton, Dept. Phys. Astron., 118 LBNL, Berkeley, Div. Phys., 119 UC, Berkeley, Dept. Phys., 120 Ivane Javakhishvili TbilisiState U., HEPI, 121 CPT, Marseille, 122 UPMC, Paris, 123 VECC, Calcutta, 124 Panjab U., Chandigarh, 125 Argonne Natl. Lab.,HEP Div., 126 Natl. Taiwan U., Taipei, Phys. Dept., 127 CCNU, Wuhan, Inst. Part. Phys., 128 Wichita State U., 129 Rice U.,Dept. Phys. Astron., 130 CAS, IHEP, Beijing, 131 U. Santiago de Compostela, IGFAE, 132 U. Tsukuba, Inst. Phys., 133 LPTHE,Paris, 134 Los Alamos Natl. Lab., Theor. Div., 135 Ben-Gurion U., Beer-Sheva, Dept. Phys., 136 INFN, Rome 3, 137 U. Bern,AEC, 138 UC, Santa Barbara, Dept. Phys., 139 Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 140 CTU, Prague, 141 INFN, Cagliari, 142 INFN,LNF, Frascati, 143 U. Rome 1, La Sapienza, Dept. Phys., 144 U. Turin, Dept. Exp. Phys., 145 U. Edinburgh, Sch. Phys. Astron.,146 PSI, Villigen, 147 Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Phys. Div., 148 U. Toronto, 149 Excel. Cluster Universe, Munich, 150 INFN, Naples,151 U. Louisville, Dept. Phys., 152 NCBJ, Warsaw, 153 U. Lyon 1, 154 Polytech. Bari, 155 Los Alamos Natl. Lab., 156 UC, SanDiego, Dept. Phys., 157 Michigan State U., East Lansing, Dept. Phys. Astron., 158 Federal da Fronteira Sul U., 159 U. SouthernDenmark, CP3-Origins, 160 U. Florence, Dept. Phys. Astron., 161 U. Rome 1, La Sapienza, 162 MPI Nucl. Phys., Heidelberg,163 Yale U., Dept. Phys., 164 U. Wurzburg, Dept. Phys. Astron., 165 LPNHE, Sorbonne Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, 166

Natl. Res. U. Higher Sch. Econ., Moscow, 167 Indiana U., Bloomington, Dept. Phys., 168 U. Rome 2, Tor Vergata, Dept. Phys.,169 INFN Rome Tor Vergata, 170 LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, 171 LPT, Orsay, 172 U. Liverpool, Dept. Phys., 173 U. Notre Dame,Dept. Phys., 174 UPenn, Philadelphia, Dept. Phys. Astron., 175 TAMU, College Station, 176 UMass, Amherst, Dept. Phys.,177 INFN, Italy, 178 U. Sao Paulo, Inst. Phys., 179 CBPF, Rio de Janeiro, 180 Shandong U., Jinan, 181 TAMU, College Station,Dept. Phys. Astron., 182 Weizmann Inst. Sci., Rehovot, Fac. Phys., 183 U. Glasgow, Sch. Phys. Astron., 184 Technion, IIT, Dept.Phys., 185 IPM, Tehran, 186 King’s Coll. London, 187 KIT, Karlsruhe, ETP, 188 EPFL, Lausanne, LPTP, 189 ICAS, UNSAM,Buenos Aires, 190 Tech. U., Munich, Dept. Phys., 191 Stony Brook U., 192 J. Stefan Inst., Ljubljana, 193 Uppsala U., Dept.Phys. Astron., 194 Chalmers U. Technol., Gothenburg, 195 CUNY, City Tech., 196 U. Munster, Inst. Theor. Phys., 197 Boston U.,Dept. Phys., 198 LIP, Coimbra, Dept. Phys., 199 CUNY, BMCC, 200 U. Bergen, Dept. Phys. Technol., 201 KIT, Karlsruhe, 202

IBS, Daejeon, 203 OEAW, Vienna, 204 LAL, Orsay, 205 U. Heidelberg, ITP, 206 U. Oviedo, Dept. Phys., 207 U. Rome 3, Dept.Math. Phys., 208 UCSC, Santa Cruz, Dept. Phys., 209 U. Oregon, Eugene, Dept. Phys., 210 INFN, Genoa, 211 U. Oklahoma,Norman, Dept. Phys. Astron., 212 Inst. U. de France, 213 U. Trieste, Dept. Phys., 214 U. Granada, 215 Rutgers U., Piscataway,Dept. Phys. Astron., 216 Jiao Tong U., Shanghai, Dept. Phys., 217 Pontificia U. Catol. Chile, Santiago, Dept. Phys., 218 BeihangU., 219 U. Hawaii, 220 IPhT, Saclay, 221 U. Split, FESB, 222 U. Colorado, Boulder, Dept. Phys., 223 Paris U., IV, 224 HanyangU., Seoul, Dept. Phys., 225 U. Pittsburgh, 226 U. Liverpool, 227 AGH UST, Cracow, 228 INFN, Catania, 229 Utrecht U., Dept.Phys. Astron., 230 Cal State, East Bay, 231 Johns Hopkins U., 232 Cornell U., LEPP, 233 UC, Davis, 234 LAPTH, Annecy, 235

U. Tokyo, CNS, 236 U. Hamburg, Inst. Exp. Phys., 237 CAS, ITP, Beijing, 238 UCAS, Beijing, 239 Vanderbilt U., Dept. Phys.Astron., 240 Jyvaskyla U., Dept. Phys., 241 PNPI, St. Petersburg, 242 Helsinki Inst. Phys., 243 Korea U., Seoul, 244 IPN, Orsay,245 U. Sheffield, Dept. Phys. Astron., 246 CEA, Saclay, 247 Nanjing U. Sci. Tech., 248 U. Helsinki, Dept. Phys., 249 Campus ofInternational Excellence UAM+CSIC, Madrid, Spain, 250 IFT, Madrid, 251 Brown U., Dept. Phys., 252 U. Oxford, Part. Phys.Dept., 253 U. Rochester, Dept. Phys. Astron., 254 U. Vienna,Theor. Phys., 255 SLAC, 256 Bethel Coll., 257 Stony Brook U., YITP,258 Radboud U., Nijmegen, 259 U. Pittsburgh, Dept. Phys. Astron., 260 LBNL, Berkeley, NSD, 261 Goethe U., Frankfurt, 262

Stony Brook U., Dept. Chem., 263 U. Warsaw, Fac. Phys., 264 Princeton U., Dept. Phys., 265 U. Ljubljana, Fac. Math. Phys., 266

U. Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 267 Hungarian Acad. Sci., Debrecen, Inst. Nucl. Res., 268 KLTE-ATOMKI, 269 Tel-Aviv U.,Dept. Part. Phys., 270 OKState, Stillwater, Dept. Phys., 271 Mazandaran U., Babolsar, 272 U. Tehran, Dept. Phys., 273 Cornell U.,274 Kyungpook Natl. U., Daegu, Dept. Phys., 275 Chonnam Natl. U., Dept. Phys., 276 POSTECH, Pohang, 277 Natl. U. Educ.,Gwangju, 278 Nagoya U., 279 LBNL, Berkeley, 280 UC, Irvine, Dept. Phys. Astron., 281 Indian Inst. Sci., Bangalore, 282 U.Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 283 RWTH, Aachen, Phys. Inst., 284 Durham U., Dept. Phys., 285 ASCR, Nucl. Phys. Inst., Rez.,286 Stavanger U., 287 Arizona State U., Tempe, Dept. Phys. Astron., 288 U. Virginia, Charlottesville, Dept. Phys., 289 HarvardU., 290 U. Cape Town, Dept. Phys., 291 Southern Methodist U., Dept. Phys., 292 U. Toronto, Dept. Phys., 293 U. Michigan,Ann Arbor, Dept. Phys., 294 USTC, Hefei, DMP, 295 Peking U., Beijing, SKLNPT, 296 Nankai U., Tianjin, Dept. Phys., 297

KIT, Karlsruhe, TP, 298 Chicago U., EFI, 299 Nanjing U., Dept. Phys., 300 Beijing Norm. U., 301 Northwestern U., Dept. Phys.Astron., 302 Cathol. U. Louvain, 303 NRC Kurchatov Inst., Moscow, 304 CPHT, Palaiseau, 305 U. Laguna, Tenerife, Dept. Phys.,306 IAC, La Laguna, 307 U. Genoa, Dept. Phys., 308 Università degli Studi di Foggia ; INFN, Italy, 309 U. Florida, Gainesville,310 CINVESTAV, Mexico, 311 Belarus St. Polytech. Acad., 312 VINCA Inst. Nucl. Sci., Belgrade, 313 KEK, Tsukuba, 314

MIT, Cambridge, CTP, 315 Charles U., Prague, Inst. Part. Nucl. Phys., 316 Columbia U., Nevis Lab., 317 UNAM, Mexico,IFUNAM, 318 U. Pavia, Dept. Nucl. Theor. Phys., 319 RAL, Didcot, 320 U. Southampton, Phys. Astron., 321 IACS, Kolkata,Dept. Theor. Phys., 322 Brookhaven Natl. Lab., 323 Seoul Natl. U., CTP, 324 U. Mainz, 325 Waseda U., Tokyo, Dept. Phys., 326

NRNU MEPhI, Moscow, 327 U. Minho, Dept. Math., 328 Bogazici U., Istanbul, Dept. Phys., 329 Princeton U., 330 New YorkU., 331 U. Ferrara, Dept. Phys. Sc. Ter., 332 Seoultech, Seoul, 333 JLab, Newport News, 334 Indiana U., Bloomington, CEEM,

4

335 Wayne State U., Detroit, Dept. Phys. Astron., 336 Stony Brook U., Dept. Phys. Astron., 337 KIT, Karlsruhe, IKP, 338 ECT,Trento, 339 Lisbon, CFTP, 340 ICTP-SAIFR, Sao Paulo, 341 U. Regensburg, Dept. Phys., 342 HKUST, Hong Kong, 343 U. Pisa,Dept. Phys., 344 U. Fed. Rio Grande do Norte, 345 U. Bristol, Wills Phys. Lab., 346 UMass, Amherst, 347 Raymond and BeverlySackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel, 348 U. Wroclaw, Fac. Phys. Astron., 349

Florida State U., Tallahassee, Dept. Phys., 350 U. Geneva, Dept. Theor. Phys., 351 ISS, Magurele, 352 RBT, Zagreb, 353 KIT,Karlsruhe, Dept. Phys., 354 Antioquia U., 355 Karamanoglu Mehmetbey U., Karaman, 356 U. Tokyo, ICEPP, 357 U. Washington,Seattle, Dept. Phys., 358 Chinese U. Hong Kong, 359 Panjab University, 360 U. Granada, CAFPE, 361 APC, Paris, 362 Cornell U.,Dept. Phys., 363 Pablo de Olavide U., Seville, 364 U. Hamburg, Inst. Theor. Phys. II, 365 Yonsei U., Dept. Phys., 366 IISER,Mohali, 367 U. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Dept. Phys., 368 U. Oklahoma, Norman, 369 Lund U., Dept. Phys., Part. Phys.,370 U. Giessen, Inst. Theor. Phys., 371 U. Heidelberg, KIP, 372 U. Nebraska, Lincoln, Dept. Phys. Astron., 373 U. Nebraska,Lincoln, 374 SUBATECH, Nantes, 375 Kent State U., Dept. Phys., 376 Penn State U., University Park, 377 Tsinghua U., Beijing,CHEP, 378 Sydney U., 379 U. Tokyo, 380 U. Autonoma, Madrid, Dept. Theor. Phys., 381 U. Gottingen, Inst. Theor. Phys., 382 U.Naples, Dept. Phys. Sci., 383 U. Cyprus, Nicosia, Dept. Phys., 384 JINR, Dubna, 385 Ohio State U., Columbus, Dept. Phys., 386

Jiao Tong U., Shanghai, INPAC, 387 Stefan Meyer Inst., Vienna, 388 IRFU, Saclay, DPHN, 389 Seikei U., 390 Department ofPhysics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, 391 U. Mainz, Inst. Phys., 392 Queen Mary U. London, Sch. Phys. Astron.,393 Boston U., 394 Copenhagen U., NBI

Acknowledgements: see the individual reports for the full list of Acknowledgements.

5