pith. sign in

arxiv: 2405.07952 · v4 · pith:M6NCRON7new · submitted 2024-05-13 · ⚛️ nucl-ex · hep-ex· nucl-th

Review of Neutron Yield from ({α}, n) Reactions: Data, Methods, and Prospects

D. Cano-Ott , S. Cebri\'an , P. Dimitriou , M. Gromov , M. Hara\'nczyk , A. Kish , H. Kluck , V. A. Kudryavtsev
show 11 more authors
I. Lazanu V. Lozza G. Luz\'on E. Mendoza M. Parvu V. Pesudo A. Pocar R. Santorelli M. Selvi S. Westerdale G. Zuzel
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 00:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th
keywords (alpha n) reactionsneutron yieldscross sectionsradiogenic neutronsdark matterneutrino physicsnuclear data evaluation
0
0 comments X

The pith

New cross-section measurements for (α, n) reactions are essential to reduce uncertainties in neutron yield predictions for physics experiments.

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

The paper reviews the state of (α, n) yield calculations, the tools used, and the available cross-section data. It identifies large uncertainties arising from incomplete data sets for relevant materials. The authors propose that targeted new measurements would improve the accuracy of neutron flux estimates. This matters for applications ranging from dark matter detection to nuclear energy, where reliable background predictions affect experiment design and sensitivity.

Core claim

The review concludes that the current uncertainties in (α, n) yield estimations are largely due to gaps in cross-section data, and that a strategy focused on new measurements for a variety of materials can substantially enhance the precision of neutron spectra predictions needed for keV--MeV range experiments.

What carries the argument

The (α, n) cross-section data sets and associated computational tools for calculating neutron yields and spectra from alpha-particle interactions with nuclei.

If this is right

  • More reliable neutron background estimates for dark matter and neutrino experiments.
  • Improved accuracy in modeling neutron production in subcritical nuclear systems using UO2.
  • Better predictions for applications in nuclear astrophysics and medical physics.
  • Prioritization of specific materials for future cross-section experiments.
  • Overall reduction in uncertainties for sensitivity analyses in next-generation detectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such improved data could also inform shielding designs in low-background laboratories beyond the experiments mentioned.
  • Connecting these yields to cosmic-ray induced neutrons might reveal synergies in background modeling.
  • Future work could test the proposed strategy by updating yield libraries with new data and comparing to measurements.

Load-bearing premise

That the dominant uncertainties in (α, n) yield estimations come from missing or imprecise cross-section data rather than from other sources like reaction modeling or material composition.

What would settle it

Performing the proposed new cross-section measurements and finding that the resulting neutron yield predictions show no significant improvement in agreement with experimental benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2405.07952 by A. Kish, A. Pocar, D. Cano-Ott, E. Mendoza, G. Luz\'on, G. Zuzel, H. Kluck, I. Lazanu, M. Gromov, M. Hara\'nczyk, M. Parvu, M. Selvi, P. Dimitriou, R. Santorelli, S. Cebri\'an, S. Westerdale, V. A. Kudryavtsev, V. Lozza, V. Pesudo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of neutron yields calculated for light nuclei by applying different codes, including the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of neutron yields calculated for light nuclei by applying different codes, including the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Excitation function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding the radiogenic neutron production rate through the (${\alpha}$, n) reaction is crucial in many areas of physics, including dark matter searches, neutrino studies, and nuclear astrophysics. In addition to its relevance for fundamental research, the (${\alpha}$, n) reaction also plays a significant role in nuclear energy technologies, for example by contributing to neutron production in subcritical systems using UO$_{2}$, as well as in applications such as medical physics. This review examines the current state of (${\alpha}$, n) yield calculations and neutron spectra, describes the computational tools used for their estimation, and discusses the available cross-section data. We explore the uncertainties affecting (${\alpha}$, n) yield estimations and propose a strategy to enhance their accuracy. Furthermore, this paper discusses and emphasizes the need for new measurements of (${\alpha}$, n) cross-sections for a variety of relevant materials. Such measurements are essential for improving neutron flux predictions, which are crucial for reducing uncertainties in sensitivity estimates for next-generation physics experiments operating in the keV--MeV range.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. This review summarizes the current state of (α, n) neutron yield calculations and spectra, the computational tools employed, available cross-section data, and the uncertainties in yield estimates. It proposes a strategy to improve accuracy and stresses the need for new cross-section measurements on relevant materials to reduce neutron-flux uncertainties for keV–MeV experiments in dark matter, neutrino, and nuclear astrophysics.

Significance. If the literature summary is comprehensive and the identified data gaps are correctly prioritized, the review would provide a useful reference for experiment design in low-background physics by highlighting where additional (α, n) data would most impact sensitivity estimates.

major comments (1)
  1. [uncertainties discussion] The section exploring uncertainties in (α, n) yield estimations asserts that cross-section data gaps are a primary limitation and that new measurements would substantially reduce neutron-flux uncertainties, yet provides no quantitative decomposition (e.g., fractional variance contributions from cross sections versus stopping powers, isotopic composition, or branching ratios) for any benchmark material or reaction. This omission leaves the central recommendation without the supporting error budget needed to establish dominance of the cross-section term.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for neutron spectra and yield quantities is occasionally inconsistent between text and figures; a single consolidated table of symbols would improve clarity.
  2. Several references to older cross-section compilations could be supplemented with more recent evaluations if they exist, to strengthen the data-status summary.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comment. We address the major point below and have revised the manuscript to clarify the basis for our recommendation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section exploring uncertainties in (α, n) yield estimations asserts that cross-section data gaps are a primary limitation and that new measurements would substantially reduce neutron-flux uncertainties, yet provides no quantitative decomposition (e.g., fractional variance contributions from cross sections versus stopping powers, isotopic composition, or branching ratios) for any benchmark material or reaction. This omission leaves the central recommendation without the supporting error budget needed to establish dominance of the cross-section term.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative error budget would strengthen the discussion. However, after surveying the literature, no published studies provide a full variance decomposition for any benchmark (α, n) reaction that isolates the fractional contributions from cross sections, stopping powers, isotopic abundances, and branching ratios. The manuscript therefore relies on the qualitative consensus in the field (e.g., that cross-section uncertainties typically exceed those from stopping powers by an order of magnitude) rather than a numerical breakdown. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit statement in the uncertainties section acknowledging this limitation, tempering the claim of dominance, and noting that a dedicated sensitivity study would be a valuable follow-up. We have also updated the recommendation to emphasize the need for both new cross-section data and improved uncertainty quantification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper with no derivations or predictions exhibits no circularity

full rationale

This is a literature review summarizing existing (α, n) data, computational tools, uncertainties, and the need for new cross-section measurements. No new derivations, equations, fits, or quantitative predictions are presented that could reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction. The central discussion of uncertainties and strategy for improvement draws from cited external literature rather than self-referential loops, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or renaming of results. The absence of any derivation chain means no steps qualify under the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review paper the work does not introduce new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it relies on the existing body of (α, n) literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5819 in / 1001 out tokens · 19891 ms · 2026-05-24T00:54:26.018203+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The DAMSA Experiment

    hep-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DAMSA proposes an ultra-short baseline accelerator experiment to detect short-lived dark sector messengers by overcoming the sensitivity ceiling of longer-baseline beam dump experiments through a compact detector design.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

181 extracted references · 181 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In general, they are low-lying states with high nuclear spins

    Radioactive isomeric states of a few nuclides have very suitable decay properties for thera- peutic applications. In general, they are low-lying states with high nuclear spins. They decay mostly to their respective ground states by a high internal conversion transition. The low- energy conversion electrons, or an avalanche of emitted Auger electrons, can ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Certain halogen radionuclides are widely used for both diagnosis and therapy in nuclear medicine. Fluorine ( 18F, typically produced via 18O(p, n)18F, with a half-life of 110 minutes) forms the strongest carbon-halogen bond, but it is limited to PET imaging and has too short a half-life to study slow metabolic processes, such as those involving proteins a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A new option of cancer treatment is possible with the radioactive nuclide 211At [60, 61]. Re- sults suggest that the short 7.2-hour half-life of 211At can provide blood-borne cancer patients with just enough radiation therapy to target their cancer cells and minimizes exposure of the rest of the body; it also limits the exposure of the team that manipulat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    general purpose files

    Nuclides 43K and 30P are also of interest for biological and medical studies. These can be pro- duced via the reactions 40Ar(α, p)43K and 27Al(α, n)30P [55]. Medically important nuclides also include 110mIn and 111In [64]. Typically , 111In is obtained in a cyclotron via the reac- tion 112Cd(p, 2n)111In [65, 66], or through reactions such as 109Ag(α, 2n)1...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    The comparison between early neutron yield calculations with cross-sections from EMPIRE 2.19 , TALYS 1.9 and EMPIRE 3.2.3 has recently been published [6]

    have become available over the past few years and were added to the SOURCES4A libraries. The comparison between early neutron yield calculations with cross-sections from EMPIRE 2.19 , TALYS 1.9 and EMPIRE 3.2.3 has recently been published [6]. SOURCES4A libraries are regularly updated as described in Ref. [6]. Recent development includes optimisation of t...

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    p” indicates a phenomenological model, a “m

    and [166, Annex 5.D]. It also offers the option to use a microscopic nucleon OMP, the JLM model of Bauge et al. [135], that partially covers the relevant nuclides. Both TALYS and EMPIRE can read OMPs from RIPL; in addition TALYS provides the α-OMPs Avrigeanu2014 [122, 126] and Demetriou2002-1 [129, table 1] which are not part of RIPL-3 and finally the pos...

    work page arXiv 1991

  7. [7]

    C. E. Aalseth et al. (DarkSide-20k), Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 131 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100, 102002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Cooley et al., Nucl

    J. Cooley et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 888, 110 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    V. A. Kudryavtsev, P. Zakhary , and B. Easeman, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A972, 164095 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    M. T. Pigni, S. Croft, and I. C. Gauld, Prog. Nucl. Energy 91, 147 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Exper- iment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 1: The LBNF and DUNE Projects, Tech. Rep. (Fermilab,,

    work page

  15. [15]

    arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    J. B. Albert et al. (nEXO), Phys. Rev. C 97, 065503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (102)

    work page

  18. [18]

    Allega et al

    A. Allega et al. (SNO+), Phys. Rev. Lett 130, 091801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Wilson, R

    W. Wilson, R. Perry , W. Charlton, and T. Parish, Prog. Nucl. Energy51, 608 (2009)

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Mart´ınezet al., Nucl

    T. Mart´ınezet al., Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 78 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Haefner et al., Nucl

    J. Haefner et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 856, 86 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    B. E. Watt, Phys. Rev. 87, 1037 (1952)

    work page 1952

  23. [23]

    Zuzel, M

    G. Zuzel, M. Wojcik, C. Buck, W. Rau, and G. Heusser, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 498, 240 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Leonard et al., Nucl

    D. Leonard et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 591, 490 (2008)

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    Cebri ´an et al., J

    S. Cebri ´an et al., J. Instrum. 10 (05), P05006

    work page

  26. [26]

    Abgrall et al., Nucl

    N. Abgrall et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 828, 22 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Leonard et al., Nucl

    D. Leonard et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 871, 169 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Cebri ´an et al., J

    S. Cebri ´an et al., J. Instrum. 12 (08), T08003

    work page

  29. [29]

    Aprile et al., Eur

    E. Aprile et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 890 (2017)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Akerib et al., Eur

    D. Akerib et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1044 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Agostini et al., Eur

    M. Agostini et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 388 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    LaFerriere, T

    B. LaFerriere, T. Maiti, I. Arnquist, and E. Hoppe, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 775, 93 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Neser, G

    H. Neser, G. Heusser, and M. Laubenstein, Appl. Rad. Isot 53, 191 (2000)

    work page 2000

  34. [34]

    Zuzel, private communication (2023)

    G. Zuzel, private communication (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Zuzel, M

    G. Zuzel, M. Wojcik, and H. Simgen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1743004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Zuzel and M

    G. Zuzel and M. Wojcik, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 676, 140–148 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Zuzel, K

    G. Zuzel, K. Pelczar, and M. Wojcik, Appl. Rad. Isot. 126, 165 (2017)

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Wojcik, W

    M. Wojcik, W. Wlazlo, G. Zuzel, and G. Heusser, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 449, 158–171 (2000)

    work page 2000

  39. [39]

    Zykova et al., Materials 14, 3757 (2021)

    M. Zykova et al., Materials 14, 3757 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Mozhevitina et al., AIP Conf

    E. Mozhevitina et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 1672, 050001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Chepurnov, S

    A. Chepurnov, S. Nisi, M. L. d. Vacri, and Y. Suvorov, AIP Conf. Proc.1549, 161 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Bothe and W

    W. Bothe and W. Gentner, Z. Phys. 112, 45 (1939)

    work page 1939

  43. [43]

    E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 547 (1957)

    work page 1957

  44. [44]

    K. S. Krane, Introductory Nucl. Phys. (Wiley , New York, NY, 1988)

    work page 1988

  45. [45]

    Descouvemont, Front

    P. Descouvemont, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 7, 9 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Dardelet et al., in XIII Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC XIII) (2014) p

    L. Dardelet et al., in XIII Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC XIII) (2014) p. 145

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Hampel, R

    M. Hampel, R. J. Stancliffe, M. Lugaro, and B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J. 831, 171 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Hampel, A

    M. Hampel, A. I. Karakas, R. J. Stancliffe, B. S. Meyer, and M. Lugaro, Astrophys. J. 887, 11 (2019). 36

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    R. B. Walton, J. D. Clement, and F. Boreli, Phys. Rev. 107, 1065 (1957)

    work page 1957

  50. [50]

    K. K. Sekharan, A. S. Divatia, M. K. Mehta, S. S. Kerekatte, and K. B. Nambiar, Phys. Rev. 156, 1187 (1967)

    work page 1967

  51. [51]

    C. N. Davids, Nucl. Phys. A 110, 619 (1968)

    work page 1968

  52. [52]

    J. K. Bair and F. X. Haas, Phys. Rev. C 7, 1356 (1973)

    work page 1973

  53. [53]

    H. W. Drotleff et al., Astrophys. J. 414, 735 (1993)

    work page 1993

  54. [54]

    S. E. Kellogg, R. B. Vogelaar, and R. W. Kavanagh, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 34, 1192 (1989)

    work page 1989

  55. [55]

    Harissopulos et al., Phys

    S. Harissopulos et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, 062801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  56. [56]

    P. S. Prusachenko et al., Phys. Rev. C 105, 024612 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Gao et al

    B. Gao et al. (JUNA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 132701 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    G. G. Kiss et al., Astrophys. J. 908, 202 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    T. N. Szegedi et al., Phys. Rev. C 104, 035804 (2021)

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Angus et al., EPJ Web Conf

    C. Angus et al., EPJ Web Conf. 279, 11003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Favalli, S

    A. Favalli, S. Croft, R. Venkataraman, and M. Pigni, in INMM Proceedings - 59th INMM Annual Meeting (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    P. J. Mohr, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    S. M. Qaim, I. Spahn, B. Scholten, and B. Neumaier, Radiochimica Acta 104, 601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    Breunig et al., EPJ Web Conf

    K. Breunig et al., EPJ Web Conf. 146, 08006 (2017)

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    M. J. Welch and K. D. McElvany , Radiochimica Acta34, 41 (1983)

    work page 1983

  66. [66]

    F. T. T ´ark´anyi, A. V. Ignatyuk, A. Hermanne, R. Capote, B. V. Carlson, J. W. Engle, M. A. Kellett, T. Kib´edi, G. N. Kim, F. G. Kondev, M. Hussain, O. Lebeda, A. Luca, Y. Nagai, H. Naik, A. L. Nichols, F. M. Nortier, S. V. Suryanarayana, S. Tak ´acs, and M. Verpelli, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 319, 533 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Gu ´erard, J.-F

    F. Gu ´erard, J.-F. Gestin, and M. W. Brechbiel, Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 28, 1 (2013), PMID: 23075373

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    Albertsson et al., Front

    P. Albertsson et al., Front. Med. 9, 1076210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    R. H. Larsen, B. W. Wieland, and M. R. Zalutsky , Appl. Radiat. Isot.47, 135 (1996)

    work page 1996

  70. [70]

    T ´ark´anyi, A

    F. T ´ark´anyi, A. Hermanne, A. V. Ignatyuk, S. Tak ´acs, and R. Capote, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 331, 1163 (2022)

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    Ditr´oi et al., Nucl

    F. Ditr´oi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. B 436, 119 (2018)

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Tsopelas and H

    C. Tsopelas and H. Hendrikse, Sci. World J. 2015, 676719 (2015)

    work page 2015

  73. [73]

    F. T. T ´ark´anyi, A. V. Ignatyuk, A. Hermanne, R. Capote, B. V. Carlson, J. W. Engle, M. A. Kellett, T. Kibedi, G. N. Kim, F. G. Kondev, M. Hussain, O. Lebeda, A. Luca, Y. Nagai, H. Naik, A. L. Nichols, F. M. Nortier, S. V. Suryanarayana, S. Tak ´acs, and M. Verpelli, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 319, 487 (2019)

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Herman et al., Nucl

    M. Herman et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 108, 2655 (2007)

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    Herman et al., EMPIRE-3.2 Malta (rev.1), Tech

    M. Herman et al., EMPIRE-3.2 Malta (rev.1), Tech. Rep. INDC(NDS)-0603 (International Nuclear Data Committee (INDC), 2015)

    work page 2015

  76. [76]

    A. J. Koning and D. Rochman, Nucl. Data Sheets Special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, 113, 2841 (2012)

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    S. G. Arjan Koning, Stephane Hilaire, TALYS-1.96/2.0(2021)

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Iwamoto et al., J

    O. Iwamoto et al., J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 60, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    A. J. Koning et al., Nucl. Data Sheets Special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data, 155, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Otuka et al., Nucl

    N. Otuka et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 272 (2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.