Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 87 references

EXFOR utility codes (ForEXy) and their application to neutron fission cross section evaluation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the EXFOR library can be losslessly converted to a JSON format (J4) and back again, and that a J4-built covariance pipeline puts the 237Np(n,f) evaluation systematically above JENDL-5.

desk verdict ForEXy is the real contribution here; the 237Np evaluation's 'systematically higher' claim is preliminary and rests on a fitted 0.96 rescaling that needs a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03758 v1 pith:GHLYELH6 submitted 2025-04-20 physics.comp-ph nucl-ex

Naohiko Otuka , Vidya Devi , Osamu Iwamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phnucl-ex PACS 29.87.+g25.85.Ec29.85.Fj
keywords EXFORlibraryJ4JSONformatForEXyutilitycodesEXFOR-J4conversioncovarianceestimationneptunium-237fissionSOKleast-squaresevaluationJENDL-5
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 tries to establish that the 60-year-old EXFOR experimental nuclear reaction data library can be represented, without loss, in a modern JSON format. It introduces J4, a JSON schema in which every EXFOR code string is decomposed into keys defined by the EXFOR dictionary, and two converters, X4TOJ4 and J4TOX4, that round-trip an EXFOR file through J4, together with a suite of seventeen Python utilities for maintaining the library, cancelling multiple-reaction pointers, estimating covariances, managing bibliographies and dictionaries, and spell-checking. As a demonstration, the authors apply the covariance builder MAKCOV and the SOK least-squares evaluator to the 237Np(n,f) reaction between 100 keV and 200 MeV, obtaining a preliminary evaluation systematically higher than the JENDL-5 library value. The paper matters because 237Np(n,f) is a candidate reference standard in the MeV region, and because a reversible machine-readable mirror of EXFOR could lower the barrier for new tools built around the world's only comprehensive archive of experimental nuclear reaction data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the J4 schema together with its two converters. J4 is a JSON representation in which every EXFOR code string is expanded into keys whose names and value types are defined by the EXFOR/CINDA Dictionary, which is what makes the library machine-readable without losing any logical structure; X4TOJ4 and J4TOX4 implement the round trip, with SEQADD re-inserting the line counters that J4 deliberately zeroes. The second mechanism is MAKCOV, which builds an experimental covariance matrix from partial uncertainties (ERR-S, ERR-1, ERR-2, ...) using the identity $cov(y_i,y_j) = \sum_k C^k_{ij}\,\Delta^k y_i\,\Delta^k y_j$, where the correlation coefficients $C^k_{ij}$ are read from a hand-written HED file. The third is the SOK evaluator, which performs the least-squares update of a prior estimate to a posterior estimate, $x_1 = x_0 + X_0C^T(CX_0C^T+V)^{-1}(y-Cx_0)$, on logarithms of cross sections and ratios, so that the hand-built matrix $V$ directly determines the posterior.

What would settle it

Rerun the SOK fit with the Paradela 237Np/235U ratio restored to its published face value (no 0.96 factor) and with the HED correlation coefficients set to their extremes (all zero, then all one): if the posterior 237Np(n,f) curve no longer sits systematically above JENDL-5, the evaluation claim is an artifact of the shape-ratio rescaling and hand-assigned covariances. Alternatively, once the Vorobyev et al. ratio dataset is compiled into EXFOR, repeat the fit and check whether the systematic rise over JENDL-5 survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim has two parts, and both are stated by the authors as accomplished facts. The first is that the J4 JSON representation carries the full logical structure of the EXFOR format: a code string such as DECAY-DATA is decomposed into keyed subfields (nuclide, half-life, radiation type, energy, intensity) defined by the EXFOR/CINDA dictionary, so that a program can read any value directly, and the conversion is reversible, with X4TOJ4 followed by J4TOX4 reproducing the original EXFOR file apart from trailing-zero formatting (preserved by the -s option) and line-counter integers that SEQADD restores. The second is scientific: using the J4-based chain to build experimental covariance matrices for the fast-neutron fission of neptunium-237 and feeding them to the SOK simultaneous least-squares evaluator produces a preliminary 237Np(n,f) cross section, evaluated between 100 keV and 200 MeV, that is systematically higher than the corresponding JENDL-5 cross section. The authors note the direction is supported by the 252Cf spontaneous-fission spectrum-averaged cross section (Mannhart's 1361 mb against JENDL-5's 1347 mb), and they explicitly label the result preliminary, pending inclusion of the newly published Vorobyev et al. ratio dataset once it enters EXFOR.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation result rests on the covariance matrix $V$ that the evaluator builds from EXFOR partial uncertainties using correlation coefficients assigned by hand in HED files, plus the decision to rescale the Paradela ratio dataset by a fitted factor of 0.96; if those assignments or that rescaling misrepresent the data, the systematic rise over JENDL-5 is not supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • J4 files distributed alongside the ForEXy codes let anyone build EXFOR-processing software without learning the 80-column EXFOR layout, because the JSON carries every logical structure of the original file.
  • The switch from the Perl SOX to the Python/J4 SOX is production-safe: the experimental data vector $y$ is reproduced exactly, and differences in the covariance matrix $V$ change evaluated fission cross sections by less than 0.1‰, with the largest effect in 240Pu.
  • MAKCOV turns covariance construction from EXFOR partial uncertainties into a scriptable, documented step, and doubles as a total-uncertainty calculator through the quadrature sum of the partial uncertainties.
  • The preliminary SOK evaluation places the 237Np(n,f) cross section systematically above JENDL-5 across 100 keV to 200 MeV, a direction consistent with the 252Cf spectrum-averaged cross section comparison.
  • The POIPOI and EXTMUL pointer-cancellation tools extract a single dataset from a multiple-reaction-formalism subentry, removing a known hurdle for programmatic users of EXFOR.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A formal round-trip test over the entire EXFOR-2024 Master File, rather than the single-entry examples shown, would settle the losslessness claim in full generality; 'supports all logical structures' is asserted for the design, and the paper demonstrates equivalence on individual entries.
  • The hand-written HED correlation coefficients are the main lever on the result: recomputing the 237Np posterior with HED correlations at their extremes (all zero versus all one) would bound how much of the systematic rise over JENDL-5 is experimental data and how much is evaluator judgment.
  • The fitted 0.96 factor on the Paradela ratio is the largest single normalization judgment in the fit; the authors' own plan to add the Vorobyev et al. dataset gives a direct test, because if that addition moves the factor or erases the rise, the evaluation would need revision.
  • If J4 becomes the interchange layer for the library, it would extend earlier JSON-database efforts by adding a reversible JSON Dictionary (DICA2J and DICJ2A) and pointer-cancellation tools, which those efforts did not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces ForEXy, a Python package of seventeen utilities for the EXFOR experimental nuclear reaction database, built around a new JSON representation (J4) intended to be reversible with the EXFOR format. Core tools convert EXFOR files to J4 and back (X4TOJ4, J4TOX4), extract pointed datasets (POIPOI, EXTMUL), construct covariances from partial uncertainties (MAKCOV), manage dictionaries, and support bibliography/reference handling. The second part applies these codes to construct covariance matrices for 237Np(n,f) data in EXFOR and to perform a simultaneous SOK least-squares evaluation from 100 keV to 200 MeV, reporting a preliminary posterior that is systematically higher than JENDL-5. The paper also validates a rewritten Python version of the SOX input-generation code against the previous Perl version, showing sub-0.1‰ changes in evaluated cross sections.

Significance. If the reversibility claims hold, ForEXy is a genuinely useful open-source infrastructure for the EXFOR community, and the worked round-trip examples, pointer-extraction demonstrations, and SOX validation are concrete evidence for the software part. The independent SACS comparison (1361 mb vs 1347 mb) gives some directional support for the posterior shift. However, the evaluation's central claim currently rests on a post-hoc rescaling of the most discrepant dataset and lacks uncertainty quantification on the posterior-minus-JENDL-5 difference, so the significance of the evaluation section is conditional; the software contribution is more solid than the evaluation claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 15] The paper states that during trial fitting Paradela et al.'s 237Np(n,f)/235U(n,f) data were found to be systematically higher, so in the final fit the dataset was treated as a 'shape ratio' in arbitrary units with an overall normalization fitted to 0.96. This is a post-hoc modification of the data model for the dataset most discrepant from the prior, and no justification beyond the discrepancy itself is provided. Because y enters the posterior through Eq. (8), the fitted normalization directly affects x1, and the paper does not quantify how the posterior or the posterior-minus-JENDL-5 difference would change if the rescaling were omitted or if the normalization were allowed to vary within its uncertainty. A sensitivity test (e.g., fitting with and without the rescaling, or profiling over the normalization) is needed before the 'systematically higher' claim can be supported.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Summary] The conclusion that the newly evaluated 237Np(n,f) cross section is systematically higher than JENDL-5 is stated without any uncertainty on the posterior or on the difference from JENDL-5. Figure 14 shows prior and posterior curves but no posterior uncertainty band, and the SACS comparison (1361 mb vs 1347 mb) is quoted without the Mannhart SACS uncertainty, so the reader cannot judge whether the increase is statistically significant. The SACS benchmark is also not propagated through the uncertainty of the fitted Paradela normalization, which limits its use as independent support. Please provide a quantitative statement of the difference with its uncertainty and indicate the energy range in which the difference is significant.
  3. [Sec. 2.2] The design requirements state 'It is possible to reproduce the original EXFOR file from the JSON file' and 'It supports all logical structures of the EXFOR format.' The paper demonstrates reversibility with one entry (Fig. 3) and pointer extraction with one subentry (Figs. 4-7), but no systematic round-trip test over a large sample or the full library is reported. Since these two requirements are central to the software claim and distinguish J4 from simpler JSON representations, the authors should either provide a large-scale validation (e.g., round-tripping all entries of EXFOR-2024 and reporting the failure/success rate) or explicitly narrow the claim to the structures exercised in the paper.
  4. [Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 3.1] The covariance matrix V used in the SOK update is built from partial uncertainties with correlation coefficients C^k_ij supplied by the evaluator through HED files. The paper correctly emphasizes that V is the most important input and cites previous work showing sensitivity of fits to V (Ref. [51], Fig. 2), but no sensitivity analysis of the 237Np posterior to alternative HED assignments is given. Because the central evaluation claim depends on V, the paper should include at least a limited sensitivity study (e.g., treating a systematic uncertainty as fully correlated versus uncorrelated), or present the evaluation strictly as an illustration of the ForEXy workflow rather than as a new cross-section result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The text twice refers to the 'EXFOR Maser File'; this should be 'Master File'.
  2. [Throughout] Several names contain stray spaces, e.g., 'V orobyev' in Sec. 3.2 and 'V .A. Kushnir' in the discussion of Fig. 3; these should be cleaned up.
  3. [Fig. 14] The prior and posterior curves are difficult to distinguish; using distinct line styles or adding a posterior uncertainty band would make the comparison clearer.
  4. [Table 1 and Sec. 3.1] SOX is described as rewritten in Python, but it is not listed among the seventeen codes in Table 1; please clarify whether SOX is part of ForEXy or a separate program.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'It means we treated their absolute ratio in the EXFOR library as a ratio in arbitrary units...' is a run-on and would be clearer if split into two sentences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOK update and JSON round-trip tests are self-contained, with an independent SACS benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The SOK update in Eq. (8) takes y and V as inputs, and V is built from EXFOR partial uncertainties via Eq. (2) with correlation coefficients C^k_ij supplied in HED files; these are evaluator inputs rather than outputs of the fit. The 237Np(n,f) posterior is therefore an actual least-squares output, not a restatement of JENDL-5. The Paradela normalization factor 0.96 is a fitted data-treatment parameter, disclosed as such in Sec. 3.2, and the paper does not present that factor as a prediction; while this choice deserves sensitivity testing, it is not a by-construction equivalence between input and claimed result. The 'systematically higher' conclusion is additionally benchmarked against the independent Mannhart SACS value (1361 vs 1347 mb). The J4 reversibility claim is a design requirement for X4TOJ4/J4TOX4 and is supported by a concrete round-trip example whose residual differences (trailing zeros and line counters) are explicitly acknowledged and handled by the -s flag and SEQADD; it is not derived from itself. Self-citations to prior SOK-based evaluations establish methodology but are not the load-bearing evidence for the new 237Np result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on evaluator-chosen correlation coefficients and a fitted normalization factor; these are the main unmeasured inputs the reader is asked to accept. The software claim rests on an unproven completeness assumption for J4.

free parameters (2)
  • Paradela shape-ratio normalization = 0.96
    In Sec. 3.2, the 237Np/235U ratio of Paradela et al. was treated as arbitrary units and scaled by a factor determined by the fit because it sat systematically higher than other ratios; this is a free parameter of the evaluation.
  • HED correlation coefficients C^k_ij = evaluator-assigned (e.g., ERR-S=0, ERR-1=1, ERR-2=1 in Sec. 2.4 example)
    MAKCOV uses user-supplied correlations for partial uncertainties; the choices for the 237Np evaluation are not tabulated and directly shape the experimental covariance matrix V.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The EXFOR library accurately encodes the original experimental values and documented uncertainties.
    The whole toolchain and the evaluation assume EXFOR entries (e.g., 10595.002, 23756.002) are faithful representations of the measurements; this is stated in Sec. 1 and used throughout Sec. 2 and 3.
  • standard math Error propagation via Eq. (2), with linear sums of partial fractional covariances weighted by correlation coefficients, is adequate.
    Sec. 2.4 uses this model for MAKCOV; it is standard first-order covariance propagation but is an assumption about the data's error structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The J4 representation supports all logical structures of the EXFOR format.
    Sec. 2.2 states this as a design requirement and demonstrates round-trips for examples, but completeness is not proven; counters in BIB/COMMON/ENDDATA are zeroed and restored by SEQADD, indicating the mapping is not literal.
  • standard math The SOK least-squares update equations (8)-(9) with linear-interpolation design matrix (5) are valid for this evaluation.
    Sec. 3.1 adopts the SOK formalism from Kawano et al. (2000); the evaluation's posterior depends on this model and on the prior from JENDL-5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EXFOR utility codes (ForEXy) and their application to neutron fission cross section evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHLYELH6

@misc{pith2026250503758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EXFOR utility codes (ForEXy) and their application to neutron fission cross section evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHLYELH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03758}
}
read the original abstract

We developed a set of EXFOR utility codes (ForEXy) to process the information of the experimental nuclear reaction data stored in the EXFOR library. We designed a new JSON format (J4) for the EXFOR library, and developed a code converting the information in an EXFOR file to a J4 file (X4TOJ4) and another code converting it to an EXFOR file (J4TOX4) as a core part of this new code package. We also developed some other codes for managements of the EXFOR storage, bibliography and dictionary. As an application of the new code package, we constructed covariance matrices for the fast neutron induced fission cross sections of neptunium-237 in the EXFOR library by using the new codes, and applied them to evaluation of the cross section between 100 keV and 200 MeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow of processing of EXFOR library and dictionary files by the ForEXy codes. “Master”, “Entry” and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two JSON representations for the decay data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Original EXFOR file of G4109.001 (top) and the same subentry in an EXFOR file reproduced by processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EXFOR file of 23756.002 (original) compiling three datasets (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: J4 file of 23756.002 converted from an EXFOR file including EXFOR 23756.002 (Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: J4 file of 23756.002.3 extracted from the J4 file of 23756.002 (Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Absolute 232Th(n,f) cross section in EXFOR 23756.002.3 extracted from the original EXFOR file ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows an EXFOR file of the absolute 235U(n,f) cross section [40]. If one wants to construct the correlation coefficients from the three partial uncertainties coded under the headings ERR-S, ERR-1 and ERR-2, the HED file may consist of the following nine lines: 1: EN-MI…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cross section table and correlation coefficients of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BibTeX entries printed by REFBIB for a nuclear physics article [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Output of REFDOI for an EXFOR file containing EXFOR D4319.001. It is known that the publisher initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Two JSON representations for the quantity code “PAR,SIG” (partial cross section). The second example is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Change in 237Np, 233,235,238U, 239,240,241Pu(n,f) cross sections evaluated by SOK due to replacement of SOX (Perl) with SOX (Python). 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the prior and posterior values with the experimental data points [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the prior and posterior values with the experimental data points [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    Otuka, O

    N. Otuka, O. Iwamoto, EXFOR-based simultaneous evaluation of neutron-induced uranium and plutonium fission cross sections for JENDL-5, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 59 (2022) 1004–1036. doi: 10.1080/ 00223131.2022.2030259

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Otuka, E

    N. Otuka, E. Dupont, V . Semkova, B. Pritychenko, A. I. Blokhin, M. Aikawa, S. Babykina, M. Bossant, G. Chen, S. Dunaeva, R. A. Forrest, T. Fukahori, N. Furutachi, S. Ganesan, Z. Ge, O. O. Gritzay, M. Herman, S. Hlava ˇc, K. Kat ¯o, B. Lalremruata, Y . Lee, A. Makinaga, K. Matsumoto, M. Mikhaylyukova, G. Pikulina, V . Pronyaev, A. Saxena, O. Schwerer, S. ...

    2014

  3. [2]

    Lorenz, Report of the fifth Four-Centre meeting, Technical Report INDC(NDU)-16, International Atomic En- ergy Agency, 1969

    A. Lorenz, Report of the fifth Four-Centre meeting, Technical Report INDC(NDU)-16, International Atomic En- ergy Agency, 1969

    1969

  4. [3]

    Otuka, International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0401 Rev

    N. Otuka, International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0401 Rev. 6, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014. doi:10.61092/iaea.vhn8-z64d

    work page doi:10.61092/iaea.vhn8-z64d 2014

  5. [4]

    D. Brown, ENDF-6 formats manual - Data formats and procedures for the Evaluated Nuclear Data Files ENDF/B- VI, ENDF/B-VII and ENDF/B-VIII, Technical Report BNL-224854-2023-INRE, Brookhaven National Laboratory,

    2023

  6. [5]

    J. K. Tuli, Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File, Technical Report BNL-NCS-51655-01/02-Rev, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2001

    2001

  7. [7]

    Soppera, M

    N. Soppera, M. Bossant, E. Dupont, JANIS 4: An improved version of the NEA Java-based nuclear data informa- tion system, Nuclear Data Sheets 120 (2014) 294–296. doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.071

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.071 2014

  8. [8]

    Otuka, H

    N. Otuka, H. Noto, A. Ohnishi, K. Kato, Development of web editor for charged-particle nuclear reaction data, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-434, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002. doi: 10.61092/iaea. q5hj-3t22, pages 144–145

    doi:10.61092/iaea 2002

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    V . V . Zerkin, B. Pritychenko, The experimental nuclear reaction data (EXFOR): Extended computer database and web retrieval system, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 888 (2018) 31–4...

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    D. E. Cullen, A. Trkov, Program X4TOC4, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-80 Rev. 1, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    I. C. Vickridge, Update to the R33 cross section file format, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-449, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020

    2020

  4. [13]

    Schnabel, A computational EXFOR database, EPJ Web of Conferences 239 (2020) 16001

    G. Schnabel, A computational EXFOR database, EPJ Web of Conferences 239 (2020) 16001. doi: 10.1051/ epjconf/202023916001

    2020

  5. [15]

    Otuka, D

    N. Otuka, D. Brown, Summary report of the Technical Meeting on International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0879, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2023. doi:10.61092/ iaea.cz5x-44vw. 29

    2023

  6. [16]

    Accessed: 15 January 2025

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, NRDC Software, https://nds.iaea.org/nrdc/ nrdc_sft/, 2024. Accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024

  7. [17]

    Otuka, ForEXy: Utility codes for EXFOR Library, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-244 Rev

    N. Otuka, ForEXy: Utility codes for EXFOR Library, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-244 Rev. 2025/04, Interna- tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2025. doi:10.61092/iaea.hz1z-0dx3

    2025 doi

  8. [18]

    Accessed: 2 April 2025

    Otsuka, N, ForEXy, https://pypi.org/project/forexy/, 2025. Accessed: 2 April 2025

    2025

  9. [19]

    Schwerer, Report on the IAEA Technical Meeting on the Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0480, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006

    O. Schwerer, Report on the IAEA Technical Meeting on the Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0480, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006

    2006

  10. [20]

    Accessed: 15 January 2025

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, EXFOR Master Files, https://nds.iaea.org/ nrdc/exfor-master/, 2024. Accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024

  11. [21]

    2024 (EXFOR-2024),https: //nds.iaea.org/nrdc/exfor-master/exfor-2024/ , 2024

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, EXFOR Master Files Ver. 2024 (EXFOR-2024),https: //nds.iaea.org/nrdc/exfor-master/exfor-2024/ , 2024. doi: 10.61092/iaea.fk6r-3ypa, accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024 doi

  12. [22]

    Otuka, B

    N. Otuka, B. Pritychenko, Summary report of the Technical Meeting on International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0902, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2024. doi:10.61092/ iaea.sna5-q9ym

    2024

  13. [23]

    Otuka, EXFOR formats manual, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-207, Rev

    N. Otuka, EXFOR formats manual, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-207, Rev. 2022/06, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2022. doi:10.61092/iaea.w0kj-60vr

    2022 doi

  14. [24]

    Accessed: 15 January 2025

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, EXFOR Trans Files, https://nds.iaea.org/ nrdc/exfor-master/trans/, 2024. Accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024

  15. [25]

    Accessed: 15 January 2025

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, EXFOR Entry Files, https://nds.iaea.org/ nrdc/exfor-master/entry/, 2024. Accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024

  16. [26]

    Otuka, EXFOR/CINDA dictionary manual, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-213 Rev

    N. Otuka, EXFOR/CINDA dictionary manual, Technical Report IAEA-NDS-213 Rev. 2023/05, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2023. doi:10.61092/iaea.0xem-7w17

    2023 doi

  17. [27]

    Takács, A

    S. Takács, A. Hermanne, F. Ditrói, F. Tárkányi, M. Aikawa, Reexamination of cross sections of the 100Mo(p,2n)99mTc reaction, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 347 (2015) 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2015.01.056

    2015 doi

  18. [28]

    Accessed: 15 January 2025

    International Network of Nuclear Reaction Data Centres, EXFOR J4 Files, https://nds.iaea.org/nrdc/ exfor-master/j4/, 2024. Accessed: 15 January 2025

    2024

  19. [29]

    I. S. Timchenko, O. S. Deiev, S. M. Olejnik, S. M. Potin, V . A. Kushnir, V . V . Mytrochenko, S. A. Perezhogin, Cross-sections of photoneutron reaction natMo(γ,xn)93mMo at the bremsstrahlung energy up to 95 MeV, Problems of Atomic Science and Technology (2024) 15–22. doi:10.4...

    2024 doi

  20. [30]

    Michalopoulou, M

    V . Michalopoulou, M. Axiotis, S. Chasapoglou, Z. Eleme, G. Gkatis, A. Kalamara, M. Kokkoris, A. Lagoyannis, N. Patronis, A. Stamatopoulos, A. Tsantiri, R. Vlastou, Measurement of the 232Th(n,f) cross section with quasi- monoenergetic neutron beams in the energy range 2–18 MeV...

    2021 doi

  21. [31]

    Hermanne, A

    A. Hermanne, A. V . Ignatyuk, R. Capote, B. V . Carlson, J. W. Engle, M. A. Kellett, T. Kibédi, G. Kim, F. G. Kondev, M. Hussain, O. Lebeda, A. Luca, Y . Nagai, H. Naik, A. L. Nichols, F. M. Nortier, S. V . Suryanarayana, S. Takács, F. T. Tárkányi, M. Verpelli, Reference cross...

    2018 doi

  22. [32]

    Mannhart, A small guide to generating covariances of experimental data, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0588 Rev., International Atomic Energy Agency, 2013

    W. Mannhart, A small guide to generating covariances of experimental data, Technical Report INDC(NDS)-0588 Rev., International Atomic Energy Agency, 2013. doi:10.61092/iaea.tkjg-v3e4

    2013 doi

  23. [33]

    D. L. Smith, N. Otuka, Experimental nuclear reaction data uncertainties: Basic concepts and documentation, Nuclear Data Sheets 113 (2012) 3006–3053. doi:10.1016/j.nds.2012.11.004

    2012 doi

  24. [34]

    Becker, C

    B. Becker, C. Bastian, F. Emiliani, F. Gunsing, J. Heyse, K. Kauwenberghs, S. Kopecky, C. Lampoudis, C. Massimi, N. Otuka, P. Schillebeeckx, I. Sirakov, Data reduction and uncertainty propagation of time-of-flight spectra with AGS, Journal of Instrumentation 7 (2012) P11002. d...

    2012 doi

  25. [35]

    Otuka, B

    N. Otuka, B. Lalremruata, M. U. Khandaker, A. R. Usman, L. R. M. Punte, Uncertainty propagation in acti- vation cross section measurements, Radiation Physics and Chemistry 140 (2017) 502–510. doi: 10.1016/j. radphyschem.2017.01.013

    2017 doi

  26. [36]

    Neudecker, A

    D. Neudecker, A. M. Lewis, E. F. Matthews, J. Vanhoy, R. C. Haight, D. L. Smith, P. Talou, S. Croft, A. D. Carlson, B. Pierson, A. Wallner, A. Al-Adili, L. Bernstein, R. Capote, M. Devlin, M. Drosg, D. L. Duke, S. Finch, M. W. Herman, K. J. Kelly, A. Koning, A. E. Lovell, P. M...

    2023

  27. [38]

    Zerkin, Web tool for constructing a covariance matrix from EXFOR uncertainties, EPJ Web of Conferences 27 (2012) 00009

    V . Zerkin, Web tool for constructing a covariance matrix from EXFOR uncertainties, EPJ Web of Conferences 27 (2012) 00009. doi:10.1051/epjconf/20122700009. 30

    2012

  28. [39]

    Sage, Mesures des sections efficaces totale et (n,2n) sur 241Am, Technical Report INDC(FR)-73, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017

    C. Sage, Mesures des sections efficaces totale et (n,2n) sur 241Am, Technical Report INDC(FR)-73, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017

    2017

  29. [40]

    O. A. Wasson, M. M. Meier, K. C. Duvall, Absolute measurement of the uranium-235 fission cross section from 0.2 to 1.2 MeV, Nuclear Science and Engineering 81 (1982) 196–212. doi: 10.13182/NSE82-A20085

    1982 doi

  30. [41]

    Pritychenko, E

    B. Pritychenko, E. B ˇeták, M. A. Kellett, B. Singh, J. Totans, The Nuclear Science References (NSR) database and web retrieval system, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 640 (2011) 2...

    2011 doi

  31. [42]

    Arakatsu, M

    B. Arakatsu, M. Sonoda, Y . Uemura, S. Yasumi, Y . Saji, The photo-disintegration of Be by the high energyγ-rays, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 6 (1951) 66–67. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.6.66

    1951 doi

  32. [43]

    Kroesbergen, T

    W. Kroesbergen, T. Koopman, Harpsichord building in Holland, Early Music 4 (1976) 439–442. doi: 10.1093/ earlyj/4.4.439

    1976

  33. [44]

    Gyürky, Z

    G. Gyürky, Z. Fülöp, Z. Halász, G. G. Kiss, T. Szücs, Nuclear physics uncertainties of the astrophysical γ-process studied through the 64Zn(p,α)61Cu an 64Zn(p,γ)65Ga reactions, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 940 (2018) 012005. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/940/1/012005

    2018 doi

  34. [45]

    F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, G. Audi, The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear physics properties, Chinese Physics C 45 (2021) 030001. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abddae

    2021 doi

  35. [46]

    Hauser, H

    W. Hauser, H. Feshbach, The inelastic scattering of neutrons, Physical Review 87 (1952) 366–373. doi:10.1103/ PhysRev.87.366

    1952

  36. [48]

    Kawano, H

    T. Kawano, H. Matsunobu, T. Murata, A. Zukeran, Y . Nakajima, M. Kawai, O. Iwamoto, K. Shibata, T. Naka- gawa, T. Ohsawa, M. Baba, T. Yoshida, Simultaneous evaluation of fission cross sections of uranium and pluto- nium isotopes for JENDL-3.3, Journal of Nuclear Science and Te...

    2000

  37. [49]

    W. P. Poenitz, S. E. Aumeier, The simultaneous evaluation of the standards and other cross sections of importance for technology, Technical Report ANL/NDM-139, Argonne National Laboratory, 1997

    1997

  38. [50]

    V . Devi, N. Otuka, S. Ganesan, EXFOR-based simultaneous evaluation for fast neutron-induced fission cross section of thorium-232, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 61 (2024) 44–56. doi:10.1080/00223131. 2023.2256715

    2024

  39. [52]

    Okuyama, N

    R. Okuyama, N. Otuka, G. Chiba, O. Iwamoto, EXFOR-based simultaneous evaluation for neutron-induced fission cross section of plutonium-242, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 61 (2024) 57–67. doi: 10.1080/ 00223131.2023.2267070

    2024

  40. [53]

    Otuka, K

    N. Otuka, K. Tada, O. Cabellos, O. Iwamoto, Evaluation of uranium-233 neutron capture cross section in keV region, Annals of Nuclear Energy 212 (2025) 110977. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2024.110977

    2025

  41. [54]

    Otuka, O

    N. Otuka, O. Iwamoto, Simultaneous evaluation of uranium and plutonium fast neutron fission cross sections up to 200 MeV for JENDL-5 and its updates, EPJ Web of Conferences 284 (2023) 08011. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/ 202328408011

    2023 doi

  42. [55]

    Hirtz, J.-C

    J. Hirtz, J.-C. David, J. Cugnon, I. Leya, J. L. Rodríguez-Sánchez, G. Schnabel, Parameter optimisation using Bayesian inference for spallation models, The European Physical Journal A 60 (2024) 149. doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-024-01370-y

    2024 doi

  43. [56]

    A. D. Carlson, V . G. Pronyaev, R. Capote, G. M. Hale, Z.-P. Chen, I. Duran, F.-J. Hambsch, S. Kunieda, W. Mannhart, B. Marcinkevicius, R. O. Nelson, D. Neudecker, G. Noguere, M. Paris, S. P. Simakov, P. Schille- beeckx, D. L. Smith, X. Tao, A. Trkov, A. Wallner, W. Wang, Eval...

    2018 doi

  44. [57]

    S. Cierjacks, 237Np and 238U as possible standards for the MeV region, in: Proceedings of the NBS International Specialists Symposium on Neutron Standards and Applications, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 28–31 March 1977, NBS Special Publication 493, 1977, pp. 278–289

    1977

  45. [58]

    Otuka, O

    N. Otuka, O. Iwamoto, EXFOR-based simultaneous evaluation of neutron-induced uranium and plutonium fission cross sections for JENDL-5: Inputs and outputs, Technical Report JAEA-Data/Code 2022-005, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 2022. doi:10.11484/jaea-data-code-2022-005

    2022 doi

  46. [59]

    J. W. Behrens, R. S. Newbury, J. W. Magana, Measurements of the neutron-induced fission cross sections of240Pu, 242Pu, and 244Pu relative to 235U from 0.1 to 30 MeV, Nuclear Science and Engineering 66 (1978) 433–441. doi:10.13182/NSE78-A27227. 31

    1978 doi

  47. [60]

    Shibata, O

    K. Shibata, O. Iwamoto, T. Nakagawa, N. Iwamoto, A. Ichihara, S. Kunieda, S. Chiba, K. Furutaka, N. Otuka, T. Ohsawa, T. Murata, H. Matsunobu, A. Zukeran, S. Kamada, J. Katakura, JENDL-4.0: A new library for nuclear science and engineering, Journal of Nuclear Science and Techn...

    2011

  48. [61]

    Shcherbakov, A

    O. Shcherbakov, A. Donets, A. Evdokimov, A. Fomichev, T. Fukahori, A. Hasegawa, A. Laptev, V . Maslov, G. Petrov, S. Soloviev, Y . Tuboltsev, A. V orobyev, Neutron-induced fission of 233U, 238U , 232Th , 239Pu, 237Np, natPb and 209Bi relative to 235U in the energy range 1-200 ...

    2002

  49. [62]

    Paradela, L

    C. Paradela, L. Tassan-Got, L. Audouin, B. Berthier, I. Duran, L. Ferrant, S. Isaev, C. Le Naour, C. Stephan, D. Tarrío, D. Trubert, U. Abbondanno, G. Aerts, H. Álvarez, F. Álvarez-Velarde, S. Andriamonje, J. Andrzejewski, P. Assimakopoulos, G. Badurek, P. Baumann, F. Be ˇcváˇ...

    2010

  50. [63]

    Mannhart, Response of activation reactions in the neutron field of californium-252 spontaneous fission, Techni- cal Report STI/DOC/010/452, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006

    W. Mannhart, Response of activation reactions in the neutron field of californium-252 spontaneous fission, Techni- cal Report STI/DOC/010/452, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006

    2006

  51. [64]

    A. S. V orobyev, A. M. Gagarski, O. A. Shcherbakov, L. A. Vaishnene, A. M. Tyagelskaya, N. M. Olkhovich, A. L. Barabanov, Measurement of the cross section for the neutron-induced fission of 237Np nuclei in the energy range of 0.3–500 MeV, JETP Letters 120 (2024) 373–380. doi: ...

    2024 doi

  52. [65]

    Salvador-Castiñeira, F.-J

    P. Salvador-Castiñeira, F.-J. Hambsch, A. Göök, M. Vidali, N. P. Hawkes, N. J. Roberts, G. C. Taylor, D. J. Thomas, Absolute and relative cross section measurements of 237Np(n,f) and 238U(n,f) at the National Physical Laboratory, EPJ Web of Conferences 146 (2017) 04050. doi:10...

    2017

  53. [66]

    Diakaki, M

    M. Diakaki, M. Kokkoris, A. Kyrtsos, E. Skordis, C. T. Papadopoulos, R. Vlastou, A. Lagoyannis, S. Andria- monje, Determination of the 237Np(n,f) reaction cross section for En = 4.5-5.3 MeV, using a MicroMegas detector assembly, The European Physical Journal A 49 (2013) 62. do...

    2013 doi

  54. [67]

    Merla, P

    K. Merla, P. Hausch, C. M. Herbach, G. Musiol, G. Pausch, U. Todt, L. V . Drapchinskiy, V . A. Kalinin, V . I. Shpakov, Absolute measurement of neutron induced fission cross-sections of 235U, 238U, 237Np and 239Pu, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Dat...

    1991 doi

  55. [68]

    V . A. Kalinin, S. S. Kovalenko, V . N. Kyz’min, Y . A. Nemilov, L. M. Solin, V . I. Shpakov, Absolute measurements of the 237Np and 233U fission cross-sections at 1.9 MeV neutron energy using the time-correlated associated particle method and a magnetic analyzer, Technical Re...

    1987

  56. [69]

    K. Gul, M. Ahmad, M. Anwar, S. M. Saleem, Measurements of neutron fission cross sections of 237Np, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu, 244Pu, and 241Am at 14.7 MeV, Nuclear Science and Engineering 94 (1986) 42–45. doi:10.13182/ NSE86-A17115

    1986

  57. [70]

    K. R. Zasadny, H. M. Agrawal, M. Mahdavi, G. F. Knoll, Measurement of the 14-MeV fission cross sections for 233U and 237Np, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 47 (1984) 425–427

    1984

  58. [71]

    J. Wu, C. Rong, Z. Sun, J. Li, Z. Ye, X. Deng, Measurement of fission cross section for 237Np induced by fast neutron, Chinese Journal of Nuclear Physics 6 (1984) 369–372

    1984

  59. [72]

    V . N. Dushin, A. V . Fomichev, S. S. Kovalenko, K. A. Petrzhak, V . I. Shpakov, R. Arl’t, M. Iosh, G. Muziol’, K.-G. Ortlepp, V . Vagner, Statistical analysis of experimental data on the cross sections of 233,235,238U, 237Np, 239,242Pu fission by neutrons of energy 2.6, 8.5, ...

    1983

  60. [73]

    Cancé, G

    M. Cancé, G. Grenier, Mesures absolues de 240Pu(n,f), 242Pu(n,f) et 237Np(n,f) a l’energie incident de 2,5 MeV, in: Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Proceedings of the International Conference, Antwerp 6–10 September 1982, EUR 8355, Central Bureau for Nuclear Measureme...

    1982

  61. [74]

    Kobayashi, I

    K. Kobayashi, I. Kimura, H. Gotoh, H. Yagi, Measurement of the cross section for the 237Np(n,f) reaction, Annual Reports of the Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University 6 (1973) 1–9. 32

    1973

  62. [75]

    Diakaki, D

    M. Diakaki, D. Karadimos, R. Vlastou, M. Kokkoris, P. Demetriou, E. Skordis, A. Tsinganis, U. Abbondanno, G. Aerts, H. Álvarez, F. Alvarez-Velarde, S. Andriamonje, J. Andrzejewski, P. Assimakopoulos, L. Audouin, G. Badurek, P. Baumann, F. Beˇcváˇr, E. Berthoumieux, M. Calviani...

    2016

  63. [76]

    Tovesson, T

    F. Tovesson, T. S. Hill, Subthreshold fission cross section of 237Np, Nuclear Science and Engineering 159 (2008) 94–101. doi:10.13182/NSE07-55

    2008 doi

  64. [77]

    Desdin, S

    L. Desdin, S. Szegedi, J. Csikai, Measurement of the fission cross-section ratio for 237Np/235U around 14 MeV neutron energies, Acta Physica Hungarica 65 (1989) 271–275. doi:10.1007/BF03156072

    1989 doi

  65. [78]

    J. Meadows, The fission cross sections of 230Th, 232Th, 233U, 234U, 236U, 238U, 237Np, 239Pu and 242Pu rel- ative to 235U at 14.74 MeV neutron energy, Annals of Nuclear Energy 15 (1988) 421–429. doi: 10.1016/ 0306-4549(88)90038-2

    1988

  66. [79]

    A. A. Goverdovskij, A. K. Gordyushin, B. D. Kuz’minov, V . F. Mitrofanov, A. I. Sergachev, S. M. Solov’ev, P. S. Soloshenkov, Measurement of the 237Np and 235U fission cross-section ratio by the isotopic dilution method, Technical Report INDC(CCP)-281, International Atomic Ene...

    1988

  67. [80]

    A. A. Goverdovskii, A. K. Gordyushin, B. D. Kuz’minov, V . F. Mitrofanov, A. I. Sergachev, S. M. Solov’ev, G. M. Stepchenkova, Measurement of the ratio of the cross sections for fissioning of 237Np and 235U by neutrons with energies in the range 4-11 MeV, Soviet Atomic Energy ...

    1985 doi

  68. [81]

    Garlea, C

    I. Garlea, C. Miron, D. Dobrea, C. Roth, T. Mu¸ sat, H. N. Ro¸ su, Measuring of the integral cross sections at 14 MeV, for reactions 115In(n,n’), 197Au(n,2n), 93Nb(n,2n), 27Al(n,α), 56Fe(n,p), 239Pu(n,f), 238U(n,f), 232Th(n,f) and 237Np(n,f), Revue Roumaine de Physique 29 (198...

    1984

  69. [82]

    J. W. Meadows, The fission cross section of 237Np relative to 235U from 0.1 to 9.4 MeV, Nuclear Science and Engineering 85 (1983) 271–279. doi:10.13182/NSE83-A17319

    1983 doi

  70. [83]

    J. W. Behrens, J. C. Browne, J. C. Walden, Measurement of the neutron-induced fission cross section of neptunium- 237 relative to uranium-235 from 20 keV to 30 MeV, Nuclear Science and Engineering 80 (1982) 393–400. doi:10.13182/NSE82-A19824

    1982 doi

  71. [84]

    K. Way, C. F. Barnett, L. J. Kieffer, Foreword, Atomic Data 1 (1969) i–ii. doi: 10.1016/S0092-640X(69) 80018-5

    1969 doi

  72. [85]

    Zerkin, X4Pro – Universal, fully relational EXFOR database, EPJ Web of Conferences 284 (2023) 14015

    V . Zerkin, X4Pro – Universal, fully relational EXFOR database, EPJ Web of Conferences 284 (2023) 14015. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202328414015

    2023

  73. [86]

    Takibayev, N

    N. Takibayev, N. Otsuka, N. Kenzhebayev, Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Develop- ment Workshop, Technical Report INDC(KAS)-0001, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014

    2014

  74. [87]

    Saxena, Proceedings of the Fifth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Development, Tech- nical Report INDC(IND)-0048, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015

    A. Saxena, Proceedings of the Fifth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Development, Tech- nical Report INDC(IND)-0048, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015

    2015

  75. [88]

    Sarsembayeva, B

    A. Sarsembayeva, B. Zhou, N. Otuka, Proceedings of the Sixth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Development, Technical Report INDC(JPN)-0200, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015

    2015

  76. [89]

    G. C. Chen, N. Otuka, Proceedings of the Seventh AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Devel- opment, Technical Report INDC(CPR)-062, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017

    2017

  77. [90]

    Odsuren, G

    M. Odsuren, G. Khuukhenkhuu, S. Davaa, N. Otuka, Proceedings of the Eighth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nu- clear Reaction Database Development, Technical Report INDC(MGL)-0001, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2018

    2018

  78. [91]

    S. C. Yang, N. Otuka, Proceedings of the Ninth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database Develop- ment, Technical Report INDC(KOR)-006, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2019

    2019

  79. [92]

    Zholdybayev, N

    T. Zholdybayev, N. Otuka, Proceedings of the Tenth AASPP Workshop on Asian Nuclear Reaction Database De- velopment, Technical Report INDC(KAS)-0002, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2019. 33

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.