pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25437 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ⚛️ nucl-ex

Recognition: unknown

Energy-differential measurement of the ^{nat}C(n,p) and ^{nat}C(n,d) reactions at the n_TOF facility at CERN

P. \v{Z}ugec , N. Colonna , D. Rochman , M. Barbagallo , J. Andrzejewski , J. Perkowski , A. Ventura , D. Bosnar
show 124 more authors
A. Gawlik-Ramiega M. Sabat\'e-Gilarte M. Bacak F. Mingrone E. Chiaveri O. Aberle V. Alcayne S. Amaducci L. Audouin V. Babiano-Suarez S. Bennett E. Berthoumieux J. Billowes A. Brown M. Busso M. Caama\~no L. Caballero-Ontanaya F. Calvi\~no M. Calviani D. Cano-Ott A. Casanovas F. Cerutti G. Cort\'es M. A. Cort\'es-Giraldo L. Cosentino S. Cristallo L. A. Damone P. J. Davies M. Diakaki M. Dietz C. Domingo-Pardo R. Dressler Q. Ducasse E. Dupont I. Dur\'an Z. Eleme B. Fern\'andez-Dom\'inguez A. Ferrari P. Finocchiaro V. Furman K. G\"obel R. Garg S. Gilardoni I. F. Gon\c{c}alves E. Gonz\'alez-Romero C. Guerrero F. Gunsing H. Harada S. Heinitz J. Heyse D. G. Jenkins A. Junghans F. K\"appeler Y. Kadi A. Kimura I. Knapov\'a M. Kokkoris Y. Kopatch M. Krti\v{c}ka D. Kurtulgil I. Ladarescu C. Lederer-Woods H. Leeb J. Lerendegui-Marco S. J. Lonsdale D. Macina A. Manna T. Mart\'inez M. Mart\'inez-Ca\~nada A. Masi C. Massimi P. Mastinu M. Mastromarco E. A. Maugeri A. Mazzone E. Mendoza A. Mengoni V. Michalopoulou P. M. Milazzo J. Moreno-Soto A. Musumarra A. Negret R. Nolte F. Og\'allar A. Oprea N. Patronis A. Pavlik C. Petrone L. Piersanti E. Pirovano I. Porras J. Praena J. M. Quesada D. Ramos T. Rauscher R. Reifarth C. Rubbia A. Saxena P. Schillebeeckx D. Schumann A. Sekhar A. G. Smith N. V. Sosnin P. Sprung A. Stamatopoulos G. Tagliente J. L. Tain A. Tarife\~no-Saldivia L. Tassan-Got Th. Thomas P. Torres-S\'anchez A. Tsinganis J. Ulrich S. Urlass S. Valenta G. Vannini V. Variale P. Vaz D. Vescovi V. Vlachoudis R. Vlastou A. Wallner P. J. Woods T. Wright
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex
keywords neutron cross sectionscarbon reactionsnuclear data evaluationcharged particle emissionenergy differential measurementexcited nuclear states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurements of natural carbon neutron reactions show a higher (n,p) cross section than current evaluations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents energy-differential cross sections for the reactions where neutrons on natural carbon produce protons or deuterons. These data extend up to 25 MeV and indicate that the proton-emission channel has a larger cross section than adopted in standard nuclear data libraries. The results are consistent with an earlier integral measurement but differ from evaluations, while matching certain model predictions after including effects from excited states in the product nuclei. Accurate cross sections matter for modeling neutron interactions in carbon materials used in various applications.

Core claim

The energy-differential cross sections for the natC(n,p) and natC(n,d) reactions were measured and found to be largely inconsistent with major evaluation libraries for the (n,p) channel, which yields significantly higher values supporting a prior integral measurement.

What carries the argument

Position-sensitive silicon telescopes for identifying and measuring emitted charged particles, combined with corrections for population of excited states in daughter nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The branching ratios and angular distributions of particles emitted from excited states in the daughter nuclei, adopted from model calculations, accurately represent the physical process.

What would settle it

An independent experiment measuring the same energy-differential cross section for the natural carbon (n,p) reaction that matches the lower values in current evaluation libraries within experimental uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25437 by A. Brown, A. Casanovas, A. Ferrari, A. Gawlik-Ramiega, A. G. Smith, A. Junghans, A. Kimura, A. Manna, A. Masi, A. Mazzone, A. Mengoni, A. Musumarra, A. Negret, A. Oprea, A. Pavlik, A. Saxena, A. Sekhar, A. Stamatopoulos, A. Tarife\~no-Saldivia, A. Tsinganis, A. Ventura, A. Wallner, B. Fern\'andez-Dom\'inguez, C. Domingo-Pardo, C. Guerrero, C. Lederer-Woods, C. Massimi, C. Petrone, C. Rubbia, D. Bosnar, D. Cano-Ott, D. G. Jenkins, D. Kurtulgil, D. Macina, D. Ramos, D. Rochman, D. Schumann, D. Vescovi, E. A. Maugeri, E. Berthoumieux, E. Chiaveri, E. Dupont, E. Gonz\'alez-Romero, E. Mendoza, E. Pirovano, F. Calvi\~no, F. Cerutti, F. Gunsing, F. K\"appeler, F. Mingrone, F. Og\'allar, G. Cort\'es, G. Tagliente, G. Vannini, H. Harada, H. Leeb, I. Dur\'an, I. F. Gon\c{c}alves, I. Knapov\'a, I. Ladarescu, I. Porras, J. Andrzejewski, J. Billowes, J. Heyse, J. Lerendegui-Marco, J. L. Tain, J. Moreno-Soto, J. M. Quesada, J. Perkowski, J. Praena, J. Ulrich, K. G\"obel, L. A. Damone, L. Audouin, L. Caballero-Ontanaya, L. Cosentino, L. Piersanti, L. Tassan-Got, M. A. Cort\'es-Giraldo, M. Bacak, M. Barbagallo, M. Busso, M. Caama\~no, M. Calviani, M. Diakaki, M. Dietz, M. Kokkoris, M. Krti\v{c}ka, M. Mart\'inez-Ca\~nada, M. Mastromarco, M. Sabat\'e-Gilarte, N. Colonna, N. Patronis, N. V. Sosnin, O. Aberle, P. Finocchiaro, P. J. Davies, P. J. Woods, P. Mastinu, P. M. Milazzo, P. Schillebeeckx, P. Sprung, P. Torres-S\'anchez, P. Vaz, P. \v{Z}ugec, Q. Ducasse, R. Dressler, R. Garg, R. Nolte, R. Reifarth, R. Vlastou, S. Amaducci, S. Bennett, S. Cristallo, S. Gilardoni, S. Heinitz, S. J. Lonsdale, S. Urlass, S. Valenta, Th. Thomas, T. Mart\'inez, T. Rauscher, T. Wright, V. Alcayne, V. Babiano-Suarez, V. Furman, V. Michalopoulou, V. Variale, V. Vlachoudis, Y. Kadi, Y. Kopatch, Z. Eleme.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Neutron beam profiles parameterized by coefficients view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Counts detected in coincidence by one arbitrary selected view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. All counts (protons, deuterons and tritons) detected view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representation of the resolution function from view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured number of counts from the view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Distributions of view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Excited states from Tab view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ratio between view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows several cross section evaluations for 13C, from various evaluation libraries. Most of them peak be￾low 25 mb. The only exceptions are the EAF-2010 cross section for the (n,p) reaction, which has been rescaled by a factor 0.1 (and is therefore 10 times higher), and the JENDL/HE-2004 cross section for the (n,d) reaction, which has been rescaled by a factor 0.5 (being twice as high). Compared with 12C … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows an example of the artificially con￾structed branching ratios for the 12C(n,p) 12B reaction, for the first four states in 12B. They are compared with the branching ratios from a single, arbitrarily selected TALYS model set. Above the threshold for the 4th ex￾cited state (vertical line at 16.61 MeV; see Table III), the sum of displayed branching ratios is no longer equal to 1 due to the presence of hi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: also shows the overall ε¯(En) from Eq. (A.2) for the natC(n,p) and natC(n,d) reactions, accounting for both carbon isotopes and all the excited states (the results are basically the same as for the 12C alone: ε¯(En) ≈ P x ρ12(x, En)˜ε12(x, En), due to α12 ≫ α13). 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 [MeV] En 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Efficiency [%] )0 C(n,p 12 C(n,p) nat )0 C(n,d 12 C(n,d) nat FIG. 15. Detection efficiencies ε˜12(0… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Energy-differential cross section of the $^{\mathrm{nat}}$C(n,p) and $^{\mathrm{nat}}$C(n,d) reactions was measured at the neutron time of flight facility n_TOF at CERN. The measurement was performed in the first experimental area (EAR1; flight path of 182.5 m). Two position-sensitive $\Delta E$-$E$ silicon telescopes were used. Two naturally occurring carbon isotopes, $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C, contribute to the reactions on natural carbon, with the (n,p) reaction threshold at 13.7 MeV and the (n,d) threshold at 14.9 MeV (determined by the $^{12}$C isotope for both reactions). This paper provides the details of the analysis leading to the final results published previously as a Letter. The cross section results are reported up to 25 MeV. During the data analysis the population of the excited states in the daughter nuclei $^{11}$B, $^{12}$B, $^{13}$B had to be considered, requiring the adoption of the branching ratios and angular distributions of the emitted particles from an external source of information. TALYS-2.0 calculations were used as the main source and an in-depth analysis of the model-related uncertainties was performed. The n_TOF results are largely inconsistent with the major evaluation libraries. On the other hand, an unexpected agreement is found with TALYS-2.0 calculations. Specifically, the obtained cross section for the (n,p) reaction is significantly higher than in the available evaluations, fully supporting the earlier finding from an integral measurement at n_TOF.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript details the analysis of energy-differential cross-section measurements for the natC(n,p) and natC(n,d) reactions at the n_TOF facility (EAR1, 182.5 m flight path) using two position-sensitive ΔE-E silicon telescopes. Thresholds are given as 13.7 MeV for (n,p) and 14.9 MeV for (n,d), both driven by 12C. The work accounts for population of excited states in 11B, 12B, and 13B by adopting branching ratios and angular distributions from TALYS-2.0, performs an in-depth uncertainty analysis on these inputs, and reports results up to 25 MeV. The extracted (n,p) cross sections are significantly higher than major evaluations, supporting a prior n_TOF integral measurement, while showing unexpected agreement with TALYS-2.0.

Significance. If the central results hold after addressing model dependence, the data would supply important differential constraints on carbon neutron-induced reactions, with implications for evaluations used in neutron transport, dosimetry, and astrophysics. The provision of full analysis details beyond the prior Letter, combined with the explicit uncertainty study on external model inputs, strengthens the contribution. The observed discrepancy with evaluations versus agreement with TALYS-2.0 highlights potential shortcomings in current libraries but requires careful separation of experimental and model effects.

major comments (1)
  1. [Data analysis] Data analysis section (description of excited-state corrections): Branching ratios and angular distributions for emitted particles from excited states in 11B, 12B, and 13B are adopted directly from TALYS-2.0 as the primary external source. While an uncertainty analysis on these choices is reported, the same model family is subsequently used as the benchmark for the final cross sections. This shared dependence means any systematic bias in TALYS branching or angular distributions propagates into both the absolute scale of the extracted (n,p) cross sections and the apparent agreement with TALYS-2.0, weakening the claim that the discrepancy with evaluations is a fully independent experimental finding.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the (n,p) result 'fully supporting the earlier finding from an integral measurement' but does not quantify the level of agreement or reference the specific prior work; adding a brief citation and overlap metric would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the opportunity to clarify aspects of our data analysis. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Data analysis] Data analysis section (description of excited-state corrections): Branching ratios and angular distributions for emitted particles from excited states in 11B, 12B, and 13B are adopted directly from TALYS-2.0 as the primary external source. While an uncertainty analysis on these choices is reported, the same model family is subsequently used as the benchmark for the final cross sections. This shared dependence means any systematic bias in TALYS branching or angular distributions propagates into both the absolute scale of the extracted (n,p) cross sections and the apparent agreement with TALYS-2.0, weakening the claim that the discrepancy with evaluations is a fully independent experimental finding.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's valid concern regarding potential model dependence. TALYS-2.0 is used exclusively for the auxiliary corrections of branching ratios and angular distributions needed to account for excited-state population in the daughter nuclei, as our telescopes detect all protons and deuterons without state selection. The primary cross-section extraction remains data-driven from the measured yields. We performed a dedicated uncertainty analysis by varying the TALYS inputs over plausible ranges and propagated these into the final uncertainties. The major evaluations rely on independent experimental datasets and different modeling approaches, not TALYS-2.0, so the reported discrepancy with them is not undermined. The agreement with TALYS-2.0 is described as unexpected in the manuscript and may indicate strengths in its reaction modeling; we will add an explicit discussion paragraph in the revised data-analysis section to address the limitations of this model dependence and its implications for the comparisons. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; experimental measurement remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental energy-differential cross-section measurement for natC(n,p) and natC(n,d) using position-sensitive silicon telescopes at n_TOF EAR1. The central results up to 25 MeV are obtained from measured yields after corrections that include adoption of branching ratios and angular distributions for excited states in 11B, 12B, and 13B from TALYS-2.0 as an external source, accompanied by a dedicated uncertainty analysis on those inputs. The extracted cross sections are then compared to major evaluation libraries (showing inconsistency) and to TALYS-2.0 (showing agreement), while also supporting a prior integral measurement. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce the final cross-section values to the TALYS inputs by construction, nor is there any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, self-definitional loop, or load-bearing self-citation of a uniqueness theorem. The derivation chain relies on direct experimental data with external model inputs for corrections only, satisfying the criterion of being self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard nuclear kinematics plus external TALYS inputs for branching ratios rather than purely empirical extraction.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Nuclear reaction thresholds and kinematics for (n,p) and (n,d) on 12C and 13C
    Used to set energy ranges and isotopic contributions.
  • domain assumption TALYS-2.0 provides reliable branching ratios and angular distributions for excited-state decay
    Adopted as main source for correcting measured yields.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6388 in / 1238 out tokens · 60253 ms · 2026-05-07T13:52:52.143267+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chadwick, L

    M. Chadwick, L. J. Cox , P. G. Young, A. S. Meigooni, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 123 (1996) 17. [10.13182/NSE96-A24210]

    work page doi:10.13182/nse96-a24210 1996

  2. [2]

    Ibarra, W

    A. Ibarra, W. Królas, D. Bernardi, et al., Nucl. Fusion 65 (2025) 122006. [10.1088/1741-4326/adcd86]

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adcd86 2025

  3. [3]

    Podadera, P

    I. Podadera, P. Cara, B. Bolzon, et al., Nucl. Fusion 65 (2025) 122011. [10.1088/1741-4326/ade267]

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ade267 2025

  4. [4]

    W. E. Kreger, B. D. Kern, Phys. Rev. 113 (1959) 890. [10.1103/PhysRev.113.890]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.113.890 1959

  5. [5]

    E. M. Rimmer, P. S. Fisher, Nucl. Phys. 108 (1968) 567. [10.1016/0375-9474(68)90325-4]

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(68)90325-4 1968

  6. [6]

    V. E. Ablesimov, E. K. Bonyushkin, A. P. Morozov, Neu- tron Physics Conf., Kiev 1971, Vol.1, p.173 (1971)

    1971

  7. [7]

    V. V. Bobyr, G. I. Primenko, K. K. Revyuk, et al., Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 36 (1972) 2621

    1972

  8. [8]

    Pillon, M

    M. Pillon, M. Angelone, A. Krása, et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 1412 (2011) 121. [10.1063/1.3665305]

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3665305 2011

  9. [9]

    Pillon, M

    M. Pillon, M. Angelone, F. Belloni, et al., EPJ Web Conf. 146 (2017) 11005. [10.1051/epjconf/201714611005]

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714611005 2017

  10. [11]

    M. W. McNaughton, N. S. P. King, F. P. Brady, J. L. Ullman, Nucl. Instrum. Methods. 129 (1975) 241. [10.1016/0029-554X(75)90135-4]

    work page doi:10.1016/0029-554x(75)90135-4 1975

  11. [12]

    K. P. Jackson, A. Celler, W. P. Alford, et al., Phys. Lett. 201 (1988) 25. [10.1016/0370-2693(88)90073-1]

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)90073-1 1988

  12. [13]

    F. P. Brady, T. D. Ford, G. A. Needham, et al., Phys. Rev. C 43 (1991) 2284. [10.1103/PhysRevC.43.2284]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.43.2284 1991

  13. [14]

    D. S. Sorenson, X. Aslanoglou, F. P. Brady, et al., Phys. Rev. C 45 (1992) R500(R). [10.1103/PhysRevC.45.R500]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.45.r500 1992

  14. [15]

    X. Yang, L. Wang, J. Rapaport, et al., Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 1158. [10.1103/PhysRevC.48.1158]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.48.1158 1993

  15. [16]

    Pourang, J

    R. Pourang, J. W. Watson, R. Abegg, et al., Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 2751. [10.1103/PhysRevC.47.2751]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.47.2751 1993

  16. [17]

    Condé, E

    N.Olsson, H. Condé, E. Ramström, et al., Nucl. Phys. 559 (1993) 368. [10.1016/0375-9474(93)90159-U]

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(93)90159-u 1993

  17. [18]

    C. J. Martoff, S. S. Hanna, D. Počanić, et. al, Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996) 2767. [10.1103/PhysRevC.54.2767]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.54.2767 1996

  18. [19]

    K. Wang, C. J. Martoff, D. Počanić, et. al, Phys. Rev. C 53 (1996) 1718. [10.1103/PhysRevC.53.1718]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.53.1718 1996

  19. [20]

    Slypen, S

    I. Slypen, S. Benck, J. P. Meulders, V. Corcalciuc, Nucl. Phys. 671 (2000) 3. [10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00829-5]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00829-5 2000

  20. [21]

    Majerle, M

    M. Majerle, M. Angelone, A. Krása, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 951 (2020) 163014. [10.1016/j.nima.2019.163014]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.163014 2020

  21. [22]

    S. A. Kuvin, H. Y. Lee, B. DiGiovine, et al., Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 014603. [10.1103/PhysRevC.104.014603]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.014603 2021

  22. [23]

    Z. Cui, H. Jiang, K. Sun, et al., Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 064001. [10.1088/1674-1137/abf136]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abf136 2021

  23. [24]

    Wantz, A

    A. Wantz, A. N. Kuchera, S. A. Kuvin, et al., Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) 014620. [10.1103/m59q-mh3y]

    work page doi:10.1103/m59q-mh3y 2025

  24. [25]

    Rabus, U

    S.Agostinelli, J.Allison, K.Amako, etal., Nucl.Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 506 (2003) 250. [10.1016/S0168- 9002(03)01368-8]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168- 2003

  25. [26]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270. [10.1109/TNS.2006.869826]

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

  26. [27]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 835 (2016) 186. [10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  27. [28]

    Žugec, N

    P. Žugec, N. Colonna, D. Bosnar, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 101. [10.1140/epja/i2016-16101-7]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16101-7 2016

  28. [29]

    Žugec, N

    P. Žugec, N. Colonna, D. Bosnar, et al., Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 021601(R). [10.1103/PhysRevC.90.021601]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.021601 2014

  29. [30]

    Žugec, N

    P. Žugec, N. Colonna, D. Rochman, et al., Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025) 139713. [10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139713]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139713 2025

  30. [31]

    Rubbia, S

    C. Rubbia, S. Andriamonje, D. Bouvet-Bensimon, et al., A high Resolution Spallation driven Facility at the CERN-PS to Measure Neutron Cross Sections in the In- terval from 1 eV to 250 MeV, CERN-LHC-98-002-EET (1998). [CERN-LHC-98-002-EET]

    1998

  31. [32]

    Patronis, A

    N. Patronis, A. Mengoni, S. Goula, et al., EPJ Tech. Instr. 10 (2023) 13. [10.1140/epjti/s40485-023-00100-w]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjti/s40485-023-00100-w 2023

  32. [33]

    Barbagallo, C

    M. Barbagallo, C. Guerrero, A. Tsinganis, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 49 (2013) 156. [10.1140/epja/i2013-13156-x]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13156-x 2013

  33. [34]

    Sabaté-Gilarte, M

    M. Sabaté-Gilarte, M. Barbagallo, N. Colonna, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) 210. [10.1140/epja/i2017- 12392-4]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2017- 2017

  34. [35]

    Lo Meo, M

    S. Lo Meo, M. A. Cortés-Giraldo, C. Massimi, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 51 (2015) 160. [10.1140/epja/i2015-15160-6]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2015-15160-6 2015

  35. [36]

    Lerendegui-Marco, S

    J. Lerendegui-Marco, S. Lo Meo, C. Guerrero, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 100. [10.1140/epja/i2016-16100-8]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16100-8 2016

  36. [37]

    Guerrero, A

    C. Guerrero, A. Tsinganis, E. Berthoumieux, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 49 (2013) 27. [10.1140/epja/i2013-13027-6] 22

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13027-6 2013

  37. [38]

    C. Weiß, E. Chiaveri, S. Girod, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 799 (2015) 90. [10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.027]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.027 2015

  38. [39]

    Colonna, E

    N. Colonna, E. Chiaveri, F. Gunsing, Nucl. Phys. News 25:4 (2015) 19. [10.1080/10619127.2015.1035930]

    work page doi:10.1080/10619127.2015.1035930 2015

  39. [41]

    Ferrari, D

    M. Ferrari, D. Senajova, O. Aberle, et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 25 (2022) 103001. [10.1103/PhysRevAccel- Beams.25.103001]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccel- 2022

  40. [42]

    M. E. Stamati, P. Torres-Sánchez, P. Pérez-Maroto et al., EPJ Web Conf. 284 (2023) 06009 [10.1051/epj- conf/202328406009]

    work page doi:10.1051/epj- 2023

  41. [43]

    Patronis, A

    N. Patronis, A. Mengoni, N. Colonna, et al., The CERN n_TOF NEAR station for astrophysics- and application- related neutron activation measurements, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (2025) 215. [10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01674-7]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01674-7 2025

  42. [44]

    Žugec, M

    P. Žugec, M. Barbagallo, J. Andrzejewski, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 983 (2020) 164606. [10.1016/j.nima.2020.164606]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164606 2020

  43. [45]

    Pancin, B

    P. Žugec, M. Barbagallo, J. Andrzejewski, et al., J. Instrum. 15 (2020) P02011. [10.1088/1748- 0221/15/02/P02011]

    work page doi:10.1088/1748- 2020

  44. [46]

    Žugec, M

    P. Žugec, M. Barbagallo, J. Andrzejewski, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1033 (2022) 166686. [10.1016/j.nima.2022.166686]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.166686 2022

  45. [47]

    Barbagallo, J

    M. Barbagallo, J. Andrzejewski, M. Mastromarco, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 887 (2018) 27. [10.1016/j.nima.2017.12.025]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.12.025 2018

  46. [48]

    von der Linden, J

    L. Damone, M. Barbagallo, M. Mastromarco, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 042701. [10.1103/Phys- RevLett.121.042701]

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2018

  47. [49]

    Žugec, C.Weiß, C.Guerrero, et al., Nucl

    P. Žugec, C.Weiß, C.Guerrero, et al., Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 812 (2016) 134. [10.1016/j.nima.2015.12.054]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.12.054 2016

  48. [50]

    Vlachoudis, M

    V. Vlachoudis, M. Sabate-Gilarte, V. Alcayne, et al., On the resolution function of the n_TOF facility: a com- prehensive study and user guide, n_TOF-PUB-2021-001 (2021). [n_TOF-PUB-2021-001]

    2021

  49. [51]

    Žugec, N

    P. Žugec, N. Colonna, M. Sabate-Gilarte, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 875 (2017) 41. [10.1016/j.nima.2017.09.004]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.09.004 2017

  50. [52]

    Žugec, M

    P. Žugec, M. Sabaté-Gilarte, M. Bacak, et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36 (2025) 235. [10.1007/s41365-025-01820-2]

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-025-01820-2 2025

  51. [53]

    J. M. Belleman, W. Andreazza, A. A. Nosych, Proceed- ings of the 5th International Beam Instrumentation Con- ference, MOPG41 (2017) 143. [ISBN:978-3-95450-177-9]

    2017

  52. [54]

    Ahdida, D

    C. Ahdida, D. Bozzato, D. Calzolari, et al., Front. Phys. 9 (2022) 788253. [10.3389/fphy.2021.788253]

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.788253 2022

  53. [55]

    M. B. Chadwick, M. Herman, P. Obložinský, et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 112 (2011) 2887. [10.1016/j.nds.2011.11.002]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2011.11.002 2011

  54. [56]

    Behnke (ed.), K

    O. Behnke (ed.), K. Kröninger (ed.), G. Schott (ed.), T. Schörner-Sadenius (ed.), Data Analysis in High Energy Physics, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2013

    2013

  55. [57]

    A. J. Koning,D. Rochman, Nucl. Data Sheets 113 (2012)

    2012

  56. [58]

    [10.1016/j.nds.2012.11.002]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2012.11.002 2012

  57. [59]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, S. Goriely, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023) 131. [10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3 2023

  58. [60]

    https://nds.iaea.org/talys/

    TALYS & Related Software. https://nds.iaea.org/talys/

  59. [61]

    A. J. Koning, D. Rochman, J.-Ch. Sublet, et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 155 (2019) 1. [10.1016/j.nds.2019.01.002]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2019.01.002 2019

  60. [62]

    https://tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2023/astro/astro.html

  61. [63]

    Rochman, A

    D. Rochman, A. Koning, S. Goriely, S. Hi- laire, Nucl. Phys. A 1053 (2025) 122951. [10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2024.122951]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2024.122951 2025

  62. [64]

    Rochman, A

    D. Rochman, A. Koning, S. Goriely, S. Hi- laire, Nucl. Phys. A 1054 (2025) 122979. [10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2024.122979]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2024.122979 2025

  63. [65]

    J. H. Kelley, E. Kwan, J. E. Purcell, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 880 (2012) 88. [10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.01.010]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.01.010 2012

  64. [66]

    J. H. Kelley, J. E.Purcell, C. G. Sheu, Nucl. Phys. A 968 (2017) 71. [10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.07.015]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.07.015 2017

  65. [67]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Phys. A 523 (1991) 1. [10.1016/0375-9474(91)90446-D]

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(91)90446-d 1991

  66. [68]

    Rochman, A

    D. Rochman, A. J. Koning, TENDL-2009: on Evalua- tions and Monte Carlo Covariances, Proceedings of the Second international Workshop on Nuclear Data Evalua- tion for Reactor applications (Wonder 2009), pp. 105-110

    2009