Tracking detectors are of vital importance for collider-based high energy physics (HEP) experiments. The primary purpose of tracking detectors is the precise reconstruction of charged particle trajectories and the reconstruction of secondary vertices. The performance requirements from the community posed by the future collider experiments require an evolution of tracking systems, necessitating the development of new techniques, materials and technologies in order to fully exploit their physics potential. In this article we summarize the discussions and conclusions of the 2022 Snowmass Instrumentation Frontier subgroup on Solid State and Tracking Detectors (Snowmass IF03).

The ep charged-current deep inelastic scattering cross sections, dσ/dQ for Q between 200 and 60000 GeV, and dσ/dx and dσ/dy for Q > 200 GeV, have been measured with the ZEUS detector at HERA. A data sample of 47.7 pb, collected at a center-of-mass energy of 300 GeV, has been used. The cross section dσ/dQ falls by a factor of about 50000 as Q increases from 280 to 30000 GeV. The double differential cross section dσ/dxdQ has also been measured. A comparison between the data and Standard Model (SM) predictions shows that contributions from antiquarks (u and c) and quarks (d and s) are both required by the data. The predictions of the SM give a good description of the full body of the data presented here. A comparison of the charged-current cross section dσ/dQ with the recent ZEUS results for neutral-current scattering shows that the weak and electromagnetic forces have similar strengths for Q above M W ,M 2 Z . A fit to the data for dσ/dQ 2 with the Fermi constant GF and MW as free parameters yields GF = ( 1.171±0.034 (stat.) −0.032 (syst.) +0.016 −0.015 (PDF) ) ×10−5 GeV and MW = 80.8 +4.9 −4.5 (stat.) +5.0 −4.3 (syst.) +1.4 −1.3 (PDF) GeV. Results for MW , where the propagator effect alone or the SM constraint between GF and MW have been considered, are also presented. The ZEUS Collaboration J. Breitweg, S. Chekanov, M. Derrick, D. Krakauer, S. Magill, B. Musgrave, A. Pellegrino, J. Repond, R. Stanek, R. Yoshida Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA p M.C.K. Mattingly Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, USA G. Abbiendi, F. Anselmo, P. Antonioli, G. Bari, M. Basile, L. Bellagamba, D. Boscherini, A. Bruni, G. Bruni, G. Cara Romeo, G. Castellini, L. Cifarelli, F. Cindolo, A. Contin, N. Coppola, M. Corradi, S. De Pasquale, P. Giusti, G. Iacobucci, G. Laurenti, G. Levi, A. Margotti, T. Massam, R. Nania, F. Palmonari, A. Pesci, A. Polini, G. Sartorelli, Y. Zamora Garcia, A. Zichichi University and INFN Bologna, Bologna, Italy f C. Amelung, A. Bornheim, I. Brock, K. Coböken, J. Crittenden, R. Deffner, M. Eckert, H. Hartmann, K. Heinloth, E. Hilger, H.-P. Jakob, A. Kappes, U.F. Katz, R. Kerger, E. Paul, J. Rautenberg, H. Schnurbusch, A. Stifutkin, J. Tandler, A. Weber, H. Wieber Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany c D.S. Bailey, O. Barret, W.N. Cottingham, B. Foster, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J.D. McFall, D. Piccioni, J. Scott, R.J. Tapper H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. o r M. Capua, A. Mastroberardino, M. Schioppa, G. Susinno Calabria University, Physics Dept.and INFN, Cosenza, Italy f H.Y. Jeoung, J.Y. Kim, J.H. Lee, I.T. Lim, K.J. Ma, M.Y. Pac Chonnam National University, Kwangju, Korea h A. Caldwell, N. Cartiglia, Z. Jing, W. Liu, B. Mellado, J.A. Parsons, S. Ritz, R. Sacchi, S. Sampson, F. Sciulli, Q. Zhu Columbia University, Nevis Labs., Irvington on Hudson, N.Y., USA q J. Chwastowski, A. Eskreys, J. Figiel, K. Klimek, K. Olkiewicz, M.B. Przybycień, P. Stopa, L. Zawiejski Inst. of Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland j L. Adamczyk, B. Bednarek, K. Jeleń, D. Kisielewska, A.M. Kowal, T. Kowalski, M. Przybycień, E. Rulikowska-Zarȩbska, L. Suszycki, J. Zaja̧c Faculty of Physics and Nuclear Techniques, Academy of Mining and Metallurgy, Cracow, Poland j Z. Duliński, A. Kotański Jagellonian Univ., Dept. of Physics, Cracow, Poland k

A search is conducted for a low-mass charged Higgs boson produced in a top quark decay and subsequently decaying into a charm and a strange quark. The data sample was recorded in proton-proton collisions at $\\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV by the CMS experiment at the LHC and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The search is performed in the process of top quark pair production, where one top quark decays to a bottom quark and a charged Higgs boson, and the other to a bottom quark and a W boson. With the W boson decaying to a charged lepton (electron or muon) and a neutrino, the final state comprises an isolated lepton, missing transverse momentum, and at least four jets, of which two are tagged as b jets. To enhance the search sensitivity, one of the jets originating from the charged Higgs boson is required to satisfy a charm tagging selection. No significant excess beyond standard model predictions is found in the dijet invariant mass distribution. An upper limit in the range 1.68-0.25% is set on the branching fraction of the top quark decay to the charged Higgs boson and bottom quark for a charged Higgs boson mass between 80 and 160 GeV.

Historically high energy physics computing has been performed on large purpose-built computing systems. In the beginning there were single site computing facilities, which evolved into the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) used today. The vast majority of the WLCG resources are used for LHC computing and the resources are scheduled to be continuously used throughout the year. In the last several years there has been an explosion in capacity and capability of commercial and academic computing clouds. Cloud resources are highly virtualized and intended to be able to be flexibly deployed for a variety of computing tasks. There is a growing interest amongst the cloud providers to demonstrate the capability to perform large scale scientific computing. In this presentation we will discuss results from the CMS experiment using the Fermilab HEPCloud Facility, which utilized both local Fermilab resources and Amazon Web Services (AWS). The goal was to work with AWS through a matching grant to demonstrate a sustained scale approximately equal to half of the worldwide processing resources available to CMS. We will discuss the planning and technical challenges involved in organizing the most IO intensive CMS workflows on a large-scale set of virtualized resource provisioned by the Fermilab HEPCloud. We will describe the data handling and data management challenges. Also, we will discuss the economic issues and cost and operational efficiency comparison to our dedicated resources. At the end we will consider the changes in the working model of HEP computing in a domain with the availability of large scale resources scheduled at peak times.

The CMS Data Analysis School is an official event organized by the CMS Collaboration to teach students and post-docs how to perform a physics analysis. The school is coordinated by the CMS schools committee and was first implemented at the LHC Physics Center at Fermilab in 2010. As part of the training, there are a number of "short" exercises on physics object reconstruction and identification, Monte Carlo simulation, and statistical analysis, which are followed by "long" exercises based on physics analyses. Some of the long exercises go beyond the current state of the art of the corresponding CMS analyses.

Computing plays an essential role in all aspects of high energy physics. As computational technology evolves rapidly in new directions, and data throughput and volume continue to follow a steep trend-line, it is important for the HEP community to develop an effective response to a series of expected challenges. The computing challenges require adopting new strategies in algorithms, software, and hardware at multiple levels in the HEP computational pyramid. A significant issue is the human element – the need for training a scientific and technical workforce that can make optimum use of state-of-the-art computational technologies and be ready to adapt as the landscape changes. In order to help shape the desired response, the HEP Forum for Computational Excellence (HEP-FCE) initiated a roadmap planning activity with two key overlapping drivers – 1) software effectiveness, and 2) infrastructure and expertise advancement. These drivers had been identified in a number of previous studies, including the 2013 HEP Topical Panel on Computing, the 2013 Snowmass Study, and the 2014 P5 report. The HEP-FCE formed three working groups, 1) Applications Software, 2) Software Libraries and Tools, and 3) Systems (including systems software), to provide an overview of the current status of HEP computing and to present findings and opportunities for the desired HEP computational roadmap. A choice was made to focus on offline computing in HEP experiments, even though there can be nontrivial connections between offline and online computing. This document begins with a summary of the main conclusions and directions contained in the three reports, as well as a statement of the cross-cutting themes that emerge from them. Because the scope of HEP computing is so wide, it was impossible to give every technical area its due in the necessarily finite space of the individual reports. By covering some computational activities in more detail than others, the aim has been to convey the key points that are independent of the individual research projects or science directions. The three main reports follow in order after the summary. The Applications Software Working Group undertook a survey of members of the HEP community to ensure a broad perspective in the report. Albeit not a complete sample of the HEP community, the respondents covered a range of experiments and projects. Several dozens of applications were discussed in the responses. This mass of information helped to identify some of the current strengths and weaknesses of the HEP computing effort. A number of conclusions have emerged from the reports. These include assessments of the current software base, consolidation and management of software packages, sharing of libraries and tools, reactions to hardware evolution (including storage and networks), and possibilities of exploiting new computational resources. The important role of schools and training programs in increasing awareness of modern software practices and computational architectures was emphasized. A thread running across the reports relates to the difficulties in establishing rewarding career paths for HEP computational scientists. Given the scale of modern software development, it is important to recognize a significant community-level software commitment as a technical undertaking that is on par with major detector R&D. Conclusions from the reports have ramifications for how computational activities are carried out across all of HEP. A subset of the conclusions have helped identify initial actionable items for HEP-FCE activities, with the goal of producing tangible results in finite time to benefit large fractions of the HEP community. These include applications of next-generation architectures, use of HPC resources for HEP experiments, data-intensive computing (virtualization and containers), and easy-to-use production-level wide area networking. A significant fraction of this work involves collaboration with DOE ASCR facilities and staff.

This paper describes a programme to study the computing model in CMS after the next long shutdown near the end of the decade.

During the first run, CMS collected and processed more than 10B data events and simulated more than 15B events. Up to 100k processor cores were used simultaneously and 100PB of storage was managed. Each month petabytes of data were moved and hundreds of users accessed data samples. In this document we discuss the operational experience from this first run. We present the workflows and data flows that were executed, and we discuss the tools and services developed, and the operations and shift models used to sustain the system. Many techniques were followed from the original computing planning, but some were reactions to difficulties and opportunities. We also address the lessons learned from an operational perspective, and how this is shaping our thoughts for 2015.

While the LHC data movement systems have demonstrated the ability to move data at the necessary throughput, we have identified two weaknesses: the latency for physicists to access data and the complexity of the tools involved. To address these, both ATLAS and CMS have begun to federate regional storage systems using Xrootd. Xrootd, referring to a protocol and implementation, allows us to provide data access to all disk-resident data from a single virtual endpoint. This "redirector" discovers the actual location of the data and redirects the client to the appropriate site. The approach is particularly advantageous since typically the redirection requires much less than 500 milliseconds and the Xrootd client is conveniently built into LHC physicists' analysis tools. Currently, there are three regional storage federations - a US ATLAS region, a European CMS region, and a US CMS region. The US ATLAS and US CMS regions include their respective Tier 1, Tier 2 and some Tier 3 facilities; a large percentage of experimental data is available via the federation. Additionally, US ATLAS has begun studying low-latency regional federations of close-by sites. From the base idea of federating storage behind an endpoint, the implementations and use cases diverge. The CMS software framework is capable of efficiently processing data over high-latency links, so using the remote site directly is comparable to accessing local data. The ATLAS processing model allows a broad spectrum of user applications with varying degrees of performance with regard to latency; a particular focus has been optimizing n-tuple analysis. Both VOs use GSI security. ATLAS has developed a mapping of VOMS roles to specific file system authorizations, while CMS has developed callouts to the site's mapping service. Each federation presents a global namespace to users. For ATLAS, the global-to-local mapping is based on a heuristic-based lookup from the site's local file catalog, while CMS does the mapping based on translations given in a configuration file. We will also cover the latest usage statistics and interesting use cases that have developed over the previous 18 months.

Fireworks is a CMS event display which is specialized for the physics studies case. This specialization allows us to use a stylized rather than 3D-accurate representation when appropriate. Data handling is greatly simplified by using only reconstructed information and ideal geometry. Fireworks provides an easy-to-use interface which allows a physicist to concentrate only on the data in which he is interested. Data is presented via graphical and textual views. Fireworks is built using the Eve subsystem of the CERN ROOT project and CMS's FWLite project. The FWLite project was part of CMS's recent code redesign which separates data classes into libraries separate from algorithms producing the data and uses ROOT directly for C++ object storage, thereby allowing the data classes to be used directly in ROOT.

The CMS experiment is preparing for LHC data taking in several computing preparation activities. In distributed data transfer tests, in early 2007 a traffic load generator infrastructure was designed and deployed, to equip the WLCG Tiers which support the CMS Virtual Organization with a means for debugging, load-testing and commissioning data transfer routes among CMS Computing Centres. The LoadTest is based upon PhEDEx as a reliable, scalable dataset replication system. In addition, a Debugging Data Transfers (DDT) Task Force was created to coordinate the debugging of data transfer links in the preparation period and during the Computing Software and Analysis challenge in 2007 (CSA07). The task force aimed to commission most crucial transfer routes among CMS tiers by designing and enforcing a clear procedure to debug problematic links. Such procedure aimed to move a link from a debugging phase in a separate and independent environment to a production environment when a set of agreed conditions are achieved for that link. The goal was to deliver one by one working transfer routes to Data Operations. The experiences with the overall test transfers infrastructure within computing challenges - as in the WLCG Common-VO Computing Readiness Challenge (CCRC'08) - as well as in daily testing and debugging activities are reviewed and discussed, and plans for the future are presented.

During February and May 2008, CMS participated to the Combined Computing Readiness Challenge (CCRC'08) together with all other LHC experiments. The purpose of this worldwide exercise was to check the readiness of the Computing infrastructure for LHC data taking. Another set of major CMS tests called Computing, Software and Analysis challenge (CSA'08) - as well as CMS cosmic runs - were also running at the same time: CCRC augmented the load on computing with additional tests to validate and stress-test all CMS computing workflows at full data taking scale, also extending this to the global WLCG community. CMS exercised most aspects of the CMS computing model, with very comprehensive tests. During May 2008, CMS moved more than 3.6 Petabytes among more than 300 links in the complex Grid topology. CMS demonstrated that is able to safely move data out of CERN to the Tier-1 sites, sustaining more than 600 MB/s as a daily average for more than seven days in a row, with enough headroom and with hourly peaks of up to 1.7 GB/s. CMS ran hundreds of simultaneous jobs at each Tier-1 site, re-reconstructing and skimming hundreds of millions of events. After re-reconstruction the fresh AOD (Analysis Object Data) has to be synchronized between Tier-1 centers: CMS demonstrated that the required inter-Tier-1 transfers are achievable within a few days. CMS also showed that skimmed analysis data sets can be transferred to Tier-2 sites for analysis at sufficient rate, regionally as well as inter-regionally, achieving all goals in about 90% of >200 links. Simultaneously, CMS also ran a large Tier-2 analysis exercise, where realistic analysis jobs were submitted to a large set of Tier-2 sites by a large number of people to produce a chaotic workload across the systems, and with more than 400 analysis users in May. Taken all together, CMS routinely achieved submissions of 100k jobs/day, with peaks up to 200k jobs/day. The achieved results in CCRC'08 - focussing on the distributed workflows - are presented and discussed.

Charged particle production has been measured in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) events over a large range of x and Q using the ZEUS detector. The evolution of the scaled momentum, xp, with Q , in the range 10 to 1280 GeV, has been investigated in the current fragmentation region of the Breit frame. The results show clear evidence, in a single experiment, for scaling violations in scaled momenta as a function of Q. DESY 97-183

Exclusive production of 0 and J== mesons in e + p collisions has been studied with the ZEUS detector in the kinematic range 0:25 < Q 2 < 50 GeV 2 , 20 < W < 167 GeV for the 0 data and 2 < Q 2 < 40 GeV 2 , 50 < W < 150 GeV for the J== data. Cross sections for exclusive 0 and J== production have been measured as a function of Q 2 , W and t. The spin-density matrix elements r 04 00 , r 1 1?1 and Re r 5 10 have been determined for exclusive 0 production as well as r 04 00 and r 04 1?1 for exclusive J== production. The results are discussed in the context of theoretical models invoking soft and hard phenomena.

The production of ~b mesons in the reaction e+p --+ e+~bp (qb ~ K + K ) , for 7 < Q2 < 25 GeV 2 and for virtual photon-proton centre of mass energies (W) in the range 42-134 GeV, has been studied with the ZEUS detector at HERA. When compared to lower energy data at similar Q2, the results show that the 7*P --~ ~bp cross section rises strongly with W. This behaviour is similar to that previously found for the y*p ~ pOp cross section. This strong dependence cannot be explained by production through soft pomeron exchange. It is, however, consistent with perturbative QCD expectations, where it reflects the rise of the gluon momentum density in the proton at small x. The ratio of tr(qb)fir(p°), which has previously been determined by ZEUS to be 0.065 + 0.013 (stat.) in photoproduction at a mean W of 70 GeV, is measured to be 0.18 + 0.05 (stat.) -40.03 (syst.) at a mean Q2 of 12.3 GeV 2 and mean W of ~ 100 GeV and is thus approaching at large Q2 the value of 2 / 9 predicted from the quark charges of the vector mesons and a flavour independent production mechanism. l also at IROE Florence, Italy. 2 now at Univ. of Salerno and INFN Napoli, Italy. 3 supported by Worldlab, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4 now as MINERVA-Fellow at Tei-Aviv University. 5 now at Univ. of California, Santa Cruz. 6 now at VDI-Technologiezentrum DiJsseldorf. 7 now at ESG, Miinchen. 8 also at University of Torino and Alexander yon Humboldt Fellow. 9 Alexander von Humboldt Fellow. 10 Alfred E Sloan Foundation Fellow. it now at University of Washington, Seattle. 12 now at California Institute of Technology, Los Angeles. 13 supported by an EC fellowship number ERBFMBICT 950172. 14 now at Inst. of Computer Science, Jagellonian Univ., Cracow. 15 visitor from Florida State University. z6 now at DESY Computer Center. 17 supported by European Community Program PRAXIS XXI. 18 now at Univ. de Strasbourg. 19 present address: Dipartimento di Fisica, Univ. "La Sapienza', Rome. 2o also supported by NSERC, Canada. 21 supported by an EC fellowship. 22 PPARC Post-doctoral Fellow. 23 now at Park Medical Systems Inc., Lachine, Canada. 24 partially supported by DESY. 25 now at Philips Natlab, Eindhoven, NL. 26 now at Department of Energy, Washington. 27 also at University of Hamburg, Alexander von Humboldt Research Award. 28 now at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley. 29 now at Yale University, New Haven, CT. 30 supported by a MINERVA Fellowship. 31 supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). 32 present address: Tokyo Metropolitan College of Allied Medical Sciences, Tokyo 116, Japan. 33 supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant No. 2P03B09308. 34 supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant No. 2P03B09208. 35 supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). 36 supported by the FCAR of Qurbec, Canada. ZEUS Collaboration/Physics Letters B 380 (1996) 220-234 225

G. Aghuzumtsyan, D. Bartsch, I. Brock, J. Crittenden4, S. Goers, H. Hartmann, E. Hilger, P. Irrgang, H.-P. Jakob, A. Kappes, U.F. Katz5, R. Kerger6, O. Kind, E. Paul, J. Rautenberg7, R. Renner, H. Schnurbusch, A. Stifutkin, J. Tandler, K.C. Voss, A. Weber Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany D.S. Bailey8, N.H. Brook8, J.E. Cole, B. Foster, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, S. Robins, E. Rodrigues9, J. Scott, R.J. Tapper, M. Wing H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK R. Ayad10, M. Capua, L. Iannotti11, A. Mastroberardino, M. Schioppa, G. Susinno Calabria University, Physics Department and INFN, Cosenza, Italy J.Y. Kim, Y.K. Kim, J.H. Lee, I.T. Lim, M.Y. Pac12 Chonnam National University, Kwangju, Korea

Elastic and proton-dissociative ρ photoproduction (γp → ρp, γp → ρN , respectively, with ρ → π+π−) has been studied in ep interactions at HERA for photon-proton centre-of-mass energies in the range 50 < W < 100 GeV and for |t| < 0.5 GeV, where t is the square of the four-momentum transfer at the proton vertex; the results on the protondissociative reaction are presented for masses of the dissociated proton system in the range M N < 0.1W . For the elastic process, the π+π− invariant mass spectrum has been investigated as a function of t. As in fixed target experiments, the ρ resonance shape is asymmetric; this asymmetry decreases with increasing |t|, as expected in models in which the asymmetry is ascribed to the interference of resonant and non-resonant π+π− production. The cross section has been studied as a function of W ; a fit to the resonant part with the form W a gives a = 0.16± 0.06 (stat.) +0.11 −0.15 (syst.). The resonant part of the γp → π+π−p cross section is 11.2 ± 0.1 (stat.) +1.1 −1.2 (syst.) μb at 〈W 〉 = 71.7 GeV. The t dependence of the cross section can be described by a function of the type Aρ exp (−bρ|t| + cρt) with bρ = 10.9 ± 0.3 (stat.) +1.0 −0.5 (syst.) GeV−2 and cρ = 2.7 ± 0.9 (stat.) +1.9 −1.7 (syst.) GeV−4. The t dependence has also been studied as a function of W and a value of the slope of the pomeron trajectory α IP ′ = 0.23 ± 0.15 (stat.) +0.10 −0.07 (syst.) GeV−2 has been deduced. The ρ spin density matrix elements r 00, r 04 1−1 and Re[r04 10 ] have been measured and found to be consistent with expectations based on s-channel helicity conservation. For proton-dissociative π+π− photoproduction in the ρ mass range, the distributions of the two-pion invariant mass, W and the polar and azimuthal angles of the pions in the helicity frame are the same within errors as those for the elastic process. The t distribution has been fitted to an exponential function with a slope parameter 5.8 ± 0.3 (stat.) ± 0.5 (syst.) GeV−2. The ratio of the elastic to proton-dissociative ρ photoproduction cross section is 2.0 ± 0.2 (stat.) ± 0.7 (syst.). DESY 97-237 November 1997 The ZEUS Collaboration J. Breitweg, M. Derrick, D. Krakauer, S. Magill, D. Mikunas, B. Musgrave, J. Repond, R. Stanek, R.L. Talaga, R. Yoshida, H. Zhang Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA p M.C.K. Mattingly Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, USA F. Anselmo, P. Antonioli, G. Bari, M. Basile, L. Bellagamba, D. Boscherini, A. Bruni, G. Bruni, G. Cara Romeo, G. Castellini, M. Chiarini, L. Cifarelli, F. Cindolo, A. Contin, M. Corradi, S. De Pasquale, I. Gialas, P. Giusti, G. Iacobucci, G. Laurenti, G. Levi, A. Margotti, T. Massam, R. Nania, C. Nemoz, F. Palmonari, A. Pesci, A. Polini, F. Ricci, G. Sartorelli, Y. Zamora Garcia, A. Zichichi University and INFN Bologna, Bologna, Italy f C. Amelung, A. Bornheim, I. Brock, K. Coböken, J. Crittenden, R. Deffner, M. Eckert, M. Grothe, H. Hartmann, K. Heinloth, L. Heinz, E. Hilger, H.-P. Jakob, U.F. Katz, R. Kerger, E. Paul, M. Pfeiffer, Ch. Rembser, J. Stamm, R. Wedemeyer, H. Wieber Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany c D.S. Bailey, S. Campbell-Robson, W.N. Cottingham, B. Foster, R. Hall-Wilton, M.E. Hayes, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, J.D. McFall, D. Piccioni, D.G. Roff, R.J. Tapper H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. o M. Arneodo, R. Ayad, M. Capua, A. Garfagnini, L. Iannotti, M. Schioppa, G. Susinno Calabria University, Physics Dept.and INFN, Cosenza, Italy f J.Y. Kim, J.H. Lee, I.T. Lim, M.Y. Pac Chonnam National University, Kwangju, Korea h A. Caldwell, N. Cartiglia, Z. Jing, W. Liu, B. Mellado, J.A. Parsons, S. Ritz, S. Sampson, F. Sciulli, P.B. Straub, Q. Zhu Columbia University, Nevis Labs., Irvington on Hudson, N.Y., USA q P. Borzemski, J. Chwastowski, A. Eskreys, J. Figiel, K. Klimek, M.B. Przybycień, L. Zawiejski Inst. of Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland j L. Adamczyk, B. Bednarek, M. Bukowy, A. Czermak, K. Jeleń, D. Kisielewska, T. Kowalski, M. Przybycień, E. Rulikowska-Zarȩbska, L. Suszycki, J. Zaja̧c Faculty of Physics and Nuclear Techniques, Academy of Mining and Metallurgy, Cracow, Poland j Z. Duliński, A. Kotański Jagellonian Univ., Dept. of Physics, Cracow, Poland k G. Abbiendi, L.A.T. Bauerdick, U. Behrens, H. Beier, J.K. Bienlein, G. Cases, O. Deppe, K. Desler, G. Drews, U. Fricke, D.J. Gilkinson, C. Glasman, P. Göttlicher, T. Haas, W. Hain, D. Hasell, K.F. Johnson, M. Kasemann, W. Koch, U. Kötz, H. Kowalski, J. Labs, L. Lindemann, B. Löhr, M. Löwe, O. Mańczak, J. Milewski, T. Monteiro, J.S.T. Ng, D. Notz, K. Ohrenberg, I.H. Park, A. Pellegrino, F. Pelucchi, K. Piotrzkowski, M. Roco, M. Rohde, J. Roldán, J.J. Ryan, A.A. Savin, U. Schneekloth, O. Schwarzer, F. Selonke, B. Surrow, E. Tassi, T. Voß, D. Westphal, G. Wolf, U. Wollmer, C. Youngman, A.F. Żarnecki, W. Zeuner Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany B.D. Burow, H.J. Grabosch, A. Meyer, S. Schlenstedt DESY-IfH Zeuthen, Zeuthen, Germany G. Barbagli, E. Gallo, P. Pelfer University and INFN, Florence, Italy f G. Anzivino, G. Maccarrone, L. Votano INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy f A. Bamberger, S. Eisenhardt, P. Markun, T. Trefzger, S. Wölfle Fakultät für Physik der Universität Freiburg i.Br., Freiburg i.Br., Germany c J.T. Bromley, N.H. Brook, P.J. Bussey, A.T. Doyle, N. Macdonald, D.H. Saxon, L.E. Sinclair, E. Strickland, R. Waugh Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K. o I. Bohnet, N. Gendner, U. Holm, A. Meyer-Larsen, H. Salehi, K. Wick Hamburg University, I. Institute of Exp. Physics, Hamburg, Germany c L.K. Gladilin, D. Horstmann, D. Kçira, R. Klanner, E. Lohrmann, G. Poelz, W. Schott, F. Zetsche Hamburg University, II. Institute of Exp. Physics, Hamburg, Germany c T.C. Bacon, I. Butterworth, J.E. Cole, G. Howell, B.H.Y. Hung, L. Lamberti, K.R. Long, D.B. Miller, N. Pavel, A. Prinias, J.K. Sedgbeer, D. Sideris, R. Walker Imperial College London, High Energy Nuclear Physics Group, London, U.K. o U. Mallik, S.M. Wang, J.T. Wu University of Iowa, Physics and Astronomy Dept., Iowa City, USA p P. Cloth, D. Filges Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institut für Kernphysik, Jülich, Germany J.I. Fleck, T. Ishii, M. Kuze, I. Suzuki, K. Tokushuku, S. Yamada, K. Yamauchi, Y. Yamazaki Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, Tsukuba, Japan g S.J. Hong, S.B. Lee, S.W. Nam, S.K. Park Korea University, Seoul, Korea h F. Barreiro, J.P. Fernández, G. Garćıa, R. Graciani, J.M. Hernández, L. Hervás, L. Labarga, M. Mart́ınez, J. del Peso, J. Puga, J. Terrón, J.F. de Trocóniz Univer. Autónoma Madrid, Depto de F́ısica Teórica, Madrid, Spain n