Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Observation of a low energy nuclear recoil peak in the neutron calibration data of an Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ crystal in CRESST-III

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A sapphire crystal shows a 1.1 keV nuclear recoil line from thermal neutron capture on 27Al, offering a calibration method for low-energy cryogenic detectors.

desk verdict First credible observation of a 27Al neutron-capture recoil line in sapphire, but the missing neutron-off control for the 1.1 keV peak is a testable gap that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09059 v1 pith:ZO467VNU submitted 2025-06-04 physics.ins-det physics.data-an

CRESST Collaboration: G. Angloher , S. Banik , A. Bento , A. Bertolini , R. Breier , C. Bucci , L. Burmeister , F. Casadei
show 53 more authors
E. Cipelli J. Burkhart L. Canonica J. Dohm F. Dominsky S. Di Lorenzo L. Einfalt A. Erb E. Fascione F. v. Feilitzsch S. Fichtinger D. Fuchs V.M. Ghete P. Gorla P.V. Guillaumon D. Hauff M. Ješkovský J. Jochum M. Kaznacheeva H. Kluck H. Kraus B. von Krosigk A. Langenkämper M. Mancuso B. Mauri V. Mokina C. Moore P. Murali M. Olmi T. Ortmann C. Pagliarone L. Pattavina F. Petricca W. Potzel P. Povinec F. Pröbst F. Pucci F. Reindl J. Rothe K. Schäffner J. Schieck S. Schönert C. Schwertner M. Stahlberg L. Stodolsky C. Strandhagen R. Strauss I. Usherov D. Valdenaire M. Zanirato V. Zema M. Macko V. Palušová
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.data-an
keywords neutroncapturecalibrationnuclearrecoilpeakAl2O3sapphiredetectorcryogenicdarkmatterdetectorsmonoenergeticline27Al(ngamma)reactionenergylossbycrystaldefectslow-energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first observation of a mono-energetic nuclear recoil peak at $(1113.6^{+6.5}_{-6.5})\,\mathrm{eV}$ in a sapphire ($\mathrm{Al_2O_3}$) crystal during irradiation by neutrons from an AmBe source. The authors attribute the peak to radiative capture of a thermal neutron by $^{27}\mathrm{Al}$, followed by de-excitation of $^{28}\mathrm{Al}$ through emission of a single $\gamma$ ray; the recoiling aluminium nucleus carries $E_R = E_\gamma^2/(2 M_N c^2)\approx 1144\,\mathrm{eV}$, but the measured position is about $30\,\mathrm{eV}$ lower. If the identification is right, this gives a source-free, mono-energetic calibration line for low-energy nuclear recoils in sapphire detectors, which are used in dark matter and coherent neutrino scattering searches. The paper also shows that the observed downward shift is compatible with the energy lost to creating crystal defects, though the statistical significance of the shift depends on an energy-calibration uncertainty that is not precisely known.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is radiative thermal-neutron capture on $^{27}\mathrm{Al}$. A thermal neutron is captured by $^{27}\mathrm{Al}$ to form excited $^{28}\mathrm{Al}$; if the de-excitation happens through one single $\gamma$ ray of energy $E_\gamma$, the recoiling nucleus gets $E_R = E_\gamma^2/(2 M_N c^2)$, giving an expected line at $1144\,\mathrm{eV}$ in the nuclear-recoil spectrum. The paper combines this with a likelihood fit of a power law plus constant plus Gaussian peak to the measured spectrum, a Monte Carlo model using tabulated single- and multi-$\gamma$ emission probabilities to verify the peak, and molecular-dynamics simulations of the energy lost to defect creation, which predict a $32\,\mathrm{eV}$ mean downward shift, to interpret the offset between the measured and expected peak position.

What would settle it

Run the same sapphire detector for an equal duration with the AmBe source removed and process the data with the identical cuts; if a comparable peak near 1.1 keV appears in the off-source spectrum, the neutron-capture attribution fails, and if no peak appears, the capture hypothesis passes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sharp peak at $(1113.6^{+6.5}_{-6.5})\,\mathrm{eV}$ in the neutron-calibration spectrum of an $\mathrm{Al_2O_3}$ detector is produced by the well-known nuclear reaction $^{27}\mathrm{Al}(n,\gamma)^{28}\mathrm{Al}$: after a thermal neutron is captured, $^{28}\mathrm{Al}$ de-excites in a single $\gamma$ transition, and momentum conservation recoils the aluminium nucleus with an energy expected to be $1144\,\mathrm{eV}$. The peak is present at a statistical significance of $6.4\sigma$ in the data, and a Monte Carlo simulation with tabulated de-excitation probabilities predicts exactly such a peak from aluminium recoils. The paper further claims that the reconstructed peak position is lower than the expectation by $(30.4\pm 6.5)\,\mathrm{eV}$, matching molecular-dynamics simulations that predict an average energy loss of $32\,\mathrm{eV}$ to crystal-defect creation for a $1144\,\mathrm{eV}$ aluminium primary knock-on atom, though the significance of this shift is only $4\sigma$ for the nominal calibration uncertainty and drops below $2\sigma$ for more conservative assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the 1.1 keV peak as a neutron-capture calibration line assumes that no background process produces a similar peak when the AmBe source is absent; the analysis does not show a neutron-off spectrum in that energy region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sapphire crystals can be calibrated for nuclear recoils around 1.1 keV using an AmBe neutron source, eliminating the need to place low-energy radioactive calibration sources next to the detector.
  • The peak provides a direct check of the linearity and energy scale of cryogenic detectors at energies comparable to those relevant for low-mass dark matter and coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering searches.
  • If the measured $(30.4\pm 6.5)\,\mathrm{eV}$ shift is confirmed as defect-creation energy loss, the energy scale of nuclear recoil events in such crystals is about 2.7% lower than a gamma-ray calibrated scale.
  • Confirmation would also imply that defect formation changes the expected shape of nuclear recoil spectra in dark-matter and CE$\nu$NS experiments and may contribute to the unexplained low-energy excess observed in cryogenic detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not show a neutron-off spectrum in the 1.1 keV region; taking a long background run of the same crystal with identical cuts and checking whether the 1113.6 eV peak persists would directly test the neutron-capture attribution.
  • If the shift is real, the same defect-loss mechanism should be recoil-energy dependent, so measuring capture-induced recoil peaks at several different energies in the same crystal would map out the energy-loss curve predicted by molecular dynamics.
  • A practical calibration strategy could use this peak as an in-situ monitor that is insensitive to the exact position of the neutron source, since the capture line energy is fixed by the nuclear transition rather than by the neutron energy spectrum.
  • A cross-comparison of the measured shift across different crystal materials would separate material-specific defect losses from a universal electronic versus nuclear recoil scale difference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a peak at (1113.6 ± 6.5) eV in the energy spectrum of a 16 g Al2O3 CRESST-III detector during irradiation with an AmBe neutron source. The expected recoil energy from the single-gamma branch of 27Al(n,gamma)28Al is 1144 eV. The authors fit the spectrum with a Poisson likelihood containing a power law, a constant, a Gaussian for a 190 eV feature of unknown origin, and a Gaussian for the 1.1 keV peak, finding a significance of 6.4 sigma. They compare the measured peak with a Geant4 simulation using FIFRELIN/Iradina de-excitation probabilities and with a LAMMPS molecular-dynamics simulation of defect creation, which predicts a mean energy loss of about 32 eV. The measured shift is 30.4 ± 6.5 eV, with significance depending strongly on the assumed calibration uncertainty (4 sigma at 0.056% down to 1.3 sigma at 2%).

Significance. If the attribution holds, this provides a new mono-energetic nuclear recoil calibration point for Al2O3 at about 1.1 keV and extends the CRAB method to a new crystal material. The paper has several genuine strengths: the expected 1144 eV position follows from published nuclear data and standard kinematics rather than from the measured spectrum; the Geant4 simulation uses externally tabulated de-excitation probabilities; the MD defect-loss simulation is checked against the independent Sassi et al. result; and the shift claim's dependence on the inaccessible calibration uncertainty is explicitly quantified instead of being overclaimed. The two main weaknesses are the absence of a neutron-off control for the 1.1 keV region and an unexplained excess width of the fitted peak; both are directly testable and both bear on the central attribution to 27Al neutron capture.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V C and Sec. VI] The paper demonstrates that the 190 eV feature is present without the AmBe source, but it does not show a neutron-off spectrum for the 1.0-1.3 keV region where the claimed 1113.6 eV peak appears. All background components, selection criteria, efficiency corrections, and the likelihood model are derived from the neutron-on dataset alone. Consequently, the 6.4 sigma significance in Sec. VI tests only "a Gaussian line plus smooth background" against "smooth background" in that single run; it does not exclude a source-independent background line at the same energy. Since source-free data for this detector evidently exist and were analyzed for the 190 eV feature, please apply the same selection and fit chain to the source-free data and show the 1.0-1.3 keV region, or explicitly restrict the claim to the neutron-on spectrum and discuss the residual attribution risk.
  2. [Table II, Sec. IV, Sec. VI] The fitted standard deviation of the 1.1 keV peak is sigma_P = 35.1 eV, while the detector energy resolution at that energy is sigma = 12.3 eV (Eq. 1) and the simulated defect-loss distribution has sigma = 8.5 eV (Fig. 3b), giving an expected quadrature width of about 15 eV. The paper does not explain the excess width. Because the attribution to a single mono-energetic 27Al(n,gamma) transition predicts a narrow line, this discrepancy matters for both the "observation" claim and the peak-position estimate; please quantify the excess, test whether it is an artifact of the empirical background shape, or identify a physical broadening mechanism.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V E] The sentence "we identify two main sources of uncertainty in our calibration" is immediately followed by three enumerated items (fit of the calibration peak, correction of the time dependence, linearization of the detector response); please reconcile the count or group the last two items as sub-parts of one source.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The symbol E is used both as the name of the likelihood (L_E) and as the energy variable in "c_E · E"; this is confusing and should be renamed, for example by writing the recalibrated likelihood as L_cal.
  3. [Sec. VI] The discussion of the null-hypothesis distribution states that the tail is steeper than a half-chi-square distribution and that the significance of the shift is underestimated for uncertainties below about 0.5%; please state explicitly whether the quoted significances are conservative or anti-conservative in each uncertainty regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1144 eV expectation comes from tabulated nuclear data and kinematics, the measured peak is a free fit parameter, and the defect-loss shift is independently simulated and validated.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The expected recoil energy 1144 eV is obtained from published nuclear data (Q-value) and the standard two-body kinematics ER = E_gamma^2/(2 M_N c^2), independent of the measured spectrum. The observed peak position is a free parameter in the fit, so the measurement is not forced by the expectation. The defect-loss prediction (32 eV) comes from an independent LAMMPS molecular-dynamics simulation using an established interatomic potential and is explicitly validated against the external Sassi et al. results. The calibration-nuisance parameter cE is constrained by a calibration uncertainty, and the shift significance is evaluated under both null and alternative hypotheses via Monte Carlo; none of these steps fit the peak position to the prediction and then call it a measurement. The paper's own caveat that the shift significance depends on the not-directly-accessible calibration uncertainty is an honest limitation, not a circular reduction. The absence of a neutron-off control spectrum in the 1.1 keV region is a legitimate experimental background-control concern, but it does not constitute circularity, since it concerns whether the attribution is correct, not whether any input was used to construct the output. Self-citations to prior CRESST CaWO4 work and to internal analysis references are descriptive and not load-bearing; the new claim for sapphire rests on the data and external nuclear data. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or quoted text.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observation rests on external nuclear data, a standard recoil formula, a simulation chain, and an empirical spectral model. All fit parameters are openly reported as fit results rather than disguised predictions, and no new particles, forces, or other entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Peak position mu_P = 1113.6 +6.5/-6.5 eV
    Free Gaussian mean in Eq. 3; this is the main measured observable, not an externally fixed input.
  • Peak width sigma_P = 35.1 +7.1/-6.5 eV
    Free Gaussian width in Eq. 3; the fitted value is much larger than the detector resolution estimate.
  • Peak amplitude N_P = 205 +42/-39 events
    Free amplitude in Eq. 3 used for the peak significance test.
  • Background power-law exponent p = 1.058 +0.074/-0.073
    Fitted to the low-energy rise of the spectrum; part of the empirical background model that could bias the peak extraction if misspecified.
  • Background constant component C = 609 +443/-500 events
    Flat background amplitude in the fit of Eq. 3.
  • Unknown feature amplitude N_F = 528 +64/-60 events
    Amplitude of the Gaussian describing the 190 eV feature of unknown origin.
  • Unknown feature mean mu_F = 191.3 +2.2/-2.1 eV
    Position of the 190 eV Gaussian component.
  • Unknown feature width sigma_F = 18.1 +2.6/-2.3 eV
    Width of the 190 eV Gaussian component.
  • Calibration uncertainty Delta c_E = 0.056% (varied 0.056% to 2%)
    Not directly measured; the statistical significance of the observed shift is evaluated as a function of this assumed uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Published nuclear data for 27Al: 100% abundance, 0.23 b thermal capture cross-section, Q-value 7724 keV, 26.81% single-gamma branching.
    Table I takes these values from Refs. [24-26] and uses them to compute the expected recoil energy of 1144 eV.
  • standard math The kinematic relation ER = E_gamma^2 / (2 * M_N * c^2) correctly converts gamma energy to nuclear recoil energy.
    Used in Sec. II and Table I to predict the peak position.
  • domain assumption The Geant4 simulation (ImpCRESST) with FIFRELIN/Iradina cascade probabilities accurately models the detector exposure and the 27Al(n,gamma) spectrum.
    Sec. IV relies on these tabulated emission probabilities and the source/geometry model to predict a peak at 1144 eV.
  • domain assumption The energy calibration based on 55Fe X-ray lines and heater-pulse linearization remains valid when extrapolated to about 1.1 keV nuclear recoils.
    Sec. V A and V E describe this extrapolation; the unknown calibration uncertainty is the main systematic limitation.
  • domain assumption The LAMMPS simulation with the Vashishta potential reliably estimates defect energy loss at 1144 eV and 24 mK, despite validation only at lower energies and 40 mK.
    Sec. IV extends the Sassi et al. approach to the relevant energy and temperature; the paper notes details are in a forthcoming publication.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical background model (power law plus constant plus a Gaussian for the 190 eV feature) is sufficient to isolate the 1.1 keV peak.
    Eq. 3 introduces this model without a first-principles derivation of the low-energy background shape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of a low energy nuclear recoil peak in the neutron calibration data of an Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ crystal in CRESST-III." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO467VNU

@misc{pith2026250609059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of a low energy nuclear recoil peak in the neutron calibration data of an Al$_2$O$_3$ crystal in CRESST-III},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO467VNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09059}
}
abstract

The current generation of cryogenic solid state detectors used in direct dark matter and CE\textnu NS searches typically reach energy thresholds of $\mathcal{O}$(10)$\,$eV for nuclear recoils. For a reliable calibration in this energy regime a method has been proposed, providing mono-energetic nuclear recoils at low energies $\sim\,$100$\,$eV$\,$-$\,$1$\,$keV. In this work we report on the observation of a peak at (1113.6$^{+6.5}_{-6.5}$)$\,$eV in the data of an Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ crystal in CRESST-III, which was irradiated with neutrons from an AmBe calibration source. We attribute this mono-energetic peak to the radiative capture of thermal neutrons on $^{27}$Al and the subsequent de-excitation via single $\gamma$-emission. We compare the measured results with the outcome of Geant4 simulations and investigate the possibility to make use of this effect for the energy calibration of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ detectors at low energies. We further investigate the possibility of a shift in the expected energy scale of this effect caused by the creation of defects in the target crystal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic cross section of the CRESST setup [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Geant4 simulation of the total energy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. LAMMPS simulation of the energy loss ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Energy dependent signal efficiency of simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fit of the measured spectrum, corrected by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Example of the distribution of the test statistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Top: Best fit of the peak position and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Strauss et al

    R. Strauss et al. , Gram-scale cryogenic calorimeters for rare-event searches, Phys. Rev. D 96, 022009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST Collaboration), First results from the CRESST-III low-mass dark matter pro- gram, Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Light dark matter search using a diamond cryogenic detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 324 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS Collaboration), Searching for low-mass dark matter particles with a mas- sive Ge bolometer operated above ground, Phys. Rev. D 99, 082003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS Collaboration), Search for sub-GeV dark matter via the Migdal ef- fect with an EDEL WEISS germanium detector with NbSi transition-edge sensors, Phys. Rev. D 106, 062004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Alkhatib et al

    I. Alkhatib et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Light Dark Matter Search with a High-Resolution Athermal Phonon Detector Operated above Ground, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 061801 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), First dark matter constraints from a supercdms single-charge sensi- tive detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 051301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    M. F. Albakry et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Investigating the sources of low-energy events in a SuperCDMS-HVeV detector, Phys. Rev. D 105, 112006 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Results on sub-GeV dark matter from a 10 eV threshold CRESST- III silicon detector, Phys. Rev. D 107, 122003 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), First obser- vation of single photons in a CRESST detector and new dark matter exclusion limits, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083038 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Kadribasic et al

    F. Kadribasic et al. , Crystal Defects: A Portal To Dark Matter Detection (2020), arXiv:2002.03525 [physics.ins- det]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Heikinheimo et al

    M. Heikinheimo et al. , Identification of the low-energy excess in dark matter searches with crystal defects, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083009 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Sassi et al

    S. Sassi et al. , Energy loss in low energy nuclear recoils in dark matter detector materials, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063012 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Soum-Sidikov, J.-P

    G. Soum-Sidikov, J.-P. Crocombette, M.-C. Marinica, C. Doutre, D. Lhuillier, and L. Thulliez, Calculation of crystal defects induced in CaWO 4 by 100 eV displace- ment cascades using a linear Machine Learning inter- atomic potential, (2024), arXiv:2407.00133

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nordlund, F

    K. Nordlund, F. Kong, F. Djurabekova, M. Heikinheimo, K. Tuominen, and N. Mirabolfathi, Defect recombination origin of low energy excess in semiconductor detectors, (2024), arXiv:2408.07518

    2024

  8. [16]

    V. Wagner (CRAB Collaboration), Accurate Calibra- tion of Nuclear Recoils at the 100 eV Scale Using Neutron Capture, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 10.1007/s10909-022-02816-7 (2022)

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Thulliez et al

    L. Thulliez et al. , Calibration of nuclear recoils at the 100 eV scale using neutron capture, J. Instrum. 16 (07), P07032

  10. [18]

    Abele et al

    H. Abele et al. (CRAB Collaboration and NUCLEUS Collaboration), Observation of a Nuclear Recoil Peak at the 100 eV Scale Induced by Neutron Capture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 211802 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Observation of a low energy nuclear recoil peak in the neutron cali- bration data of the CRESST-III experiment, Phys. Rev. D 108, 022005 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Energy loss due to defect formation from 206Pb recoils in Su- perCDMS germanium detectors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 092101 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Adari et al., EXCESS workshop: Descriptions of rising low-energy spectra, SciPost Phys

    P. Adari et al., EXCESS workshop: Descriptions of rising low-energy spectra, SciPost Phys. Proc. 9, 001 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Baxter et al., Low-Energy Backgrounds in Solid-State Phonon and Charge Detectors 10.1146/annurev-nucl- 121423-100849 (2025), arXiv:2503.08859 [physics.ins- det]

    D. Baxter et al., Low-Energy Backgrounds in Solid-State Phonon and Charge Detectors 10.1146/annurev-nucl- 121423-100849 (2025), arXiv:2503.08859 [physics.ins- det]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. , Latest observations on the low en- ergy excess in CRESST-III, SciPost Phys. Proc. 12, 013 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Firestone et al., EGAF: Measurement and Analysis of Gamma-ray Cross Sections, Nucl

    R. Firestone et al., EGAF: Measurement and Analysis of Gamma-ray Cross Sections, Nucl. Data Sheets 119, 79 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Brown et al

    D. Brown et al. , ENDF/B-VIII.0: The 8th Major Re- lease of the Nuclear Reaction Data Library with CIELO- project Cross Sections, New Standards and Thermal Scattering Data, Nucl. Data Sheets 148, 1 (2018), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data

    2018

  18. [26]

    Shamsuzzoha Basunia, Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 28, Nucl

    M. Shamsuzzoha Basunia, Nuclear Data Sheets for A = 28, Nucl. Data Sheets 114, 1189 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Di Lorenzo, Multiple detector analysis in the CRESST Dark Matter experiment , Ph.D

    S. Di Lorenzo, Multiple detector analysis in the CRESST Dark Matter experiment , Ph.D. thesis, Gran Sasso Sci- ence Institute (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Commis- sioning run of the CRESST-II dark matter search, As- tropart. Phys. 31, 270 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Results from 730 kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter search, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1971 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Geant4-based electromagnetic background model for the CRESST dark matter experiment, Europ. Phys. J. C 79, 881 (2019), erratum: Europ. Phys. J. C 79, 987 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4), GEANT4–a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. , Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. , Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Fuß, Simulation based neutron background studies for the CRESST and COSINUS dark matter search experi- ments, Ph.D

    A. Fuß, Simulation based neutron background studies for the CRESST and COSINUS dark matter search experi- ments, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at Wien (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Thulliez, H

    L. Thulliez, H. Kluck, and A. Bonhomme, Fifre- lin4Geant4 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Soum-Sidikov, L

    G. Soum-Sidikov, L. Thulliez, O. Litaize, A. Chalil, J.- P. Crocombette, and D. Lhuillier (CRAB Collaboration), Fifradina dataset for radiative thermal neutron-capture processes in cryogenic detectors (2023). 11

    2023

  29. [37]

    with the codes FIFRELIN [38] and Iradina [39]. Sim- ulating in total 1 .1 · 109 neutrons started at the position of the AmBe source, equivalent to 6.4 d of calibration, we found the total energy deposition in the Al 2O3 crystal as shown in Fig. 2 ( black histogram). 0 0.2 0.4 ...

  30. [38]

    Litaize, O

    O. Litaize, O. Serot, and L. Berge, Fission modelling with FIFRELIN, Europ. Phys. J. A 51, 177 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Soum-Sidikov et al

    G. Soum-Sidikov et al. (CRAB Collaboration), Study of collision and γ-cascade times following neutron-capture processes in cryogenic detectors, Phys. Rev. D 108, 072009 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. P. Thompson et al. , LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales, Comput. Phys. Commun. 271, 108171 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Borschel and C

    C. Borschel and C. Ronning, Ion beam irradiation of nanostructures – a 3D Monte Carlo simulation code, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 269, 2133 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Lewis, D

    J. Lewis, D. Schwarzenbach, and H. D. Flack, Electric field gradients and charge density in corundum,α-Al2O3, Acta Crystallogr. A. 38, 733 (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Vashishta, R

    P. Vashishta, R. K. Kalia, A. Nakano, and J. P. Rino, In- teraction potentials for alumina and molecular dynamics simulations of amorphous and liquid alumina, J. Appl. Phys. 103, 083504 (2008), erratum: J. Appl. Phys. 105, 059901 (2009)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Barrat and D

    J.-L. Barrat and D. Rodney, Portable implementation of a quantum thermal bath for molecular dynamics simula- tions, J. Stat. Phys. 144, 679 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Dammak, Y

    H. Dammak, Y. Chalopin, M. Laroche, M. Hayoun, and J.-J. Greffet, Quantum thermal bath for molecular dy- namics simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 190601 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    N. F. Iachellini, Increasing the sensitivity to low mass dark matter in CRESST-III with a new DAQ and signal processing , Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians- Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    D. R. Fuchs, New Analysis Methods for Enhanced Sensi- tivity to Light Dark Matter at CRESST-III and Studies of Discovery Potential for Next Generation Cryogenic Ex- periments, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Mancuso et al., A method to define the energy thresh- old depending on noise level for rare event searches, Nucl

    M. Mancuso et al., A method to define the energy thresh- old depending on noise level for rare event searches, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 940, 492 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    The noise power spectrum is created from the ensemble av- erage of a list of cleaned empty noise traces

    to an averaged pulse from a list of cleaned nuclear recoil events from the linear regime of the detector. The noise power spectrum is created from the ensemble av- erage of a list of cleaned empty noise traces. Cleaned in this context means the removal of any remaining pulses ...

  42. [50]

    Gatti and P

    E. Gatti and P. F. Manfredi, Processing the signals from solid-state detectors in elementary-particle physics, Riv. Nuovo Cimento (1978-1999) 9, 1 (1986)

    1986

  43. [51]

    Pr¨ obstet al

    F. Pr¨ obstet al. , Model for cryogenic particle detectors with superconducting phase transition thermometers, J. Low Temp. Phys. 100, 69 (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    Update of X Ray and Gamma Ray Decay Data Standards for Detector Calibration and Other Applications , Non- serial Publications (INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC EN- ERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Abele et al

    H. Abele et al. , Sub-keV Electron Recoil Calibration for Cryogenic Detectors using a Novel X-ray Fluorescence Source (2025), arXiv:2505.17686 [physics.ins-det]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Abele et al

    H. Abele et al. , The CRAB facility at the TU Wien TRIGA reactor: status and related physics program (2025), arXiv:2505.15227 [physics.ins-det]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.