Measurement of the ambient neutron flux and spectral distribution at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory

A. Algora; A. De Blas; A. Quero-Ballesteros; A. Tarife\~no-Saldivia; D. Bemmerer; E. Nacher; F. Calvi\~no; G. Cort\'es; I. Dillmann; J. Agramunt

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Measurement of the ambient neutron flux and spectral distribution at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first long-term underground measurement of the ambient neutron flux with a full spectrum from 10^-4 eV to 20 MeV: thermal flux 3.4(2)×10^-6 and total flux 14.8(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 in Hall A of Canfranc Underground Labo

desk verdict The total flux is robust and the measurement is genuinely new, but the spectral-component errors are statistical-only and understate known unfolding systematics the paper itself acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19857 v2 pith:NNXB72VB submitted 2025-12-22 nucl-ex hep-ex

S.E.A. Orrigo , J.L. Tain , N. Mont-Geli , A. Tarifeño-Saldivia , L.M. Fraile , M. Grieger , A. Quero-Ballesteros , J. Agramunt

show 8 more authors

A. Algora D. Bemmerer F. Calviño G. Cortés A. De Blas I. Dillmann R. García E. Nacher

This is my paper

classification nucl-exhep-ex

keywords ambientneutronfluxundergroundlaboratoryspectrumhelium-3proportionalcountersmultimoderatorspectrometrythermalneutronsrare-eventsearchesCanfranc

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 establishes the neutron background in Hall A of the Canfranc Underground Laboratory as a measured spectrum rather than a simulation-dependent guess. The central numbers are a thermal flux of 3.4(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 and a total energy-integrated flux of 14.8(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, with the spectrum mapped from 10^-4 eV to 20 MeV. The authors claim this is the first long-term underground measurement with full spectral characterization over such a wide range. They derive the result from 248 live days of data recorded with an array of helium-3 counters operated as a multimoderator spectrometer, unfolding the rates with two independent iterative algorithms and pinning the thermal component with a bare and a cadmium-lined counter. The result matters because underground dark-matter and double-beta decay experiments need the neutron energy distribution, not just the total rate, to model backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is an array of ten helium-3 proportional counters, each wrapped in different thicknesses of polyethylene moderator and some in lead or cadmium, operating on the multimoderator-spectrometer principle. The response of each counter to neutrons of different energies—encoded in a response matrix—was computed with a Monte Carlo simulation of neutron transport. The neutron flux is recovered by iteratively deconvolving the measured counting rates with this response matrix, using two independent algorithms (expectation-maximization and maximum-entropy), starting from a simulated prior spectrum for the local concrete environment. The thermal bin is fixed to a value determined di

What would settle it

A measurement at the same location using an independent technique, such as neutron activation foils, that returns a thermal flux outside 3.2–3.6×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 or a total flux outside 14.6–15.0×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 would contradict the paper's quoted values. A more process-level check would be to re-unfold the published detector rates with a response matrix from an independently benchmarked Monte Carlo simulation; if the reconstructed rates still cannot match the measured rates within statistical errors (as in the paper's own Fig. 3), the response or the prior is the main uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ambient neutron field in Hall A of the Canfranc Underground Laboratory has a thermal-flux component of 3.4(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, an epithermal component (0.32 eV–0.1 MeV) of 5.96(8)×10^-6, a fast component (0.1–20 MeV) of 5.45(8)×10^-6, and a total flux of 14.8(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, with the two principal unfolding algorithms in close agreement. The paper further claims this is the first long-term measurement, in any underground laboratory, to simultaneously determine the total neutron flux and its spectral shape across the full energy range from 10^-4 eV to 20 MeV. The thermal flux is obtained independently from the difference in rates between the bare and Cd-lin

Load-bearing premise

The central numbers assume that the simulated detector response matrix and the assumed prior spectrum are accurate enough that their systematic errors are no larger than the quoted statistical uncertainties; if the response is off, the thermal-to-fast split—and possibly the total—could shift outside the stated errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Background simulations for dark-matter, double-beta, and nuclear-astrophysics detectors in Hall A can now use a measured neutron spectrum rather than only the integral flux.
The total flux agrees with a shorter earlier run in the same hall (13.8(14) versus 14.8(2) ×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1), indicating little change over a decade at roughly the 10% level.
The measured thermal flux matches an independent measurement at a different Hall A location, supporting the reliability of the thermal value.
The observed ~16% drop in thermal rate after hall modifications in December 2019 is quantified, demonstrating that changes in the laboratory environment directly alter the neutron background and need continuous monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper quotes only statistical uncertainties; propagating the systematic spread seen among the four unfolding algorithms (for example, thermal fluxes of 4.2 versus 3.0 ×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1) could widen the error bars on the epithermal and fast components, a caveat a careful user of these numbers should carry.
The bare-minus-cadmium technique used for the thermal flux could be applied at other underground sites with modest effort, giving a clean handle on the thermal component independently of unfolding assumptions.
The dependence of the unfolding on the prior spectrum means that the high-energy tail beyond 20 MeV, which the array cannot see, is simply not constrained; experiments sensitive to >20 MeV neutrons would need a different instrument.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the total flux number is solid; the error bars on the spectral pieces are not. The paper is honest about what it cannot do, which makes the missing systematic budget more frustrating, not less.

What is new: a 248-day, 10^-4 eV to 20 MeV Bonner-sphere-type measurement in Hall A at Canfranc. That is genuinely the first long-baseline neutron spectrum of its kind at an underground site, and it is a useful input for shielding design and Monte Carlo background models. The total flux, 14.8(2)x10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, holds up: four different unfolding codes land within 14.6-14.9x10^-6, and the result is consistent with the group's earlier 25-day measurement (13.8(14)x10^-6) and with an independent thermal flux at another Hall A location. The thermal anchor from the bare/Cd-lined pair (Eq. 3) is a clean direct estimate, and the authors deserve credit for showing the GRAVEL/MAXED comparison rather than hiding it.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. Table 1 quotes statistical-only errors, computed by propagating rate uncertainties through the covariance matrix. The text itself attributes the Fig. 3 residuals to "systematic uncertainties in the deconvolution procedure—either from the algorithm, the prior or the calculated response," and says that dropping E5/E8 helps some detectors and hurts others. Those are known, unquantified systematics, and they are not reflected in the quoted errors. The concrete case is the thermal flux: fixed at 3.4(2)x10^-6 for BAYES/CHIMEM, but the unconstrained GRAVEL and MAXED give 4.2 and 3.0x10^-6—a 12-24% spread against a quoted 6% error. Since all four codes share the same GEANT4 response, their agreement on the total does not validate the spectral split.

There is also a mild circularity: the Eq. 3 thermal flux is put into the first bin of the unfolding prior, so the headline total includes an input derived from the same data. It is not a trivial identity—thermal is only about 23% of the total—but the paper should say more plainly that the thermal value in Table 1 is an input, not an output, of the deconvolution. The post-hoc exclusion of E10 is at least explained by the artificial peak it produces, which is the kind of thing that happens with a Cd-lined counter and an imperfect response.

None of this kills the central result. The total flux is well supported; the spectral shape is probably in the right ballpark, but the component uncertainties are understated, and the lack of a data/response-matrix deposit makes it hard to fix externally. A reader doing underground background modeling should use the total, treat the shape as indicative, and not take the per-bin errors at face value. The paper deserves a serious referee; the right referee will ask for a systematic error budget and the unfolded spectrum as deposited data. Send it to peer review with the expectation of that revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a 248-live-day measurement of the ambient neutron flux in Hall A of the Canfranc Underground Laboratory using the HENSA 3He proportional-counter array, operated as a Bonner-sphere spectrometer. The thermal flux is obtained from the bare/Cd-lined counter rate difference via Eq. (3) and fixed as the first bin of the unfolding prior; the spectrum is then unfolded with BAYES and CHIMEM using a FLUKA-based prior, and cross-checked with GRAVEL and MAXED. The headline results are a thermal flux of 3.4(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 and a total integrated flux of 14.8(2)×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, with integrated epithermal and fast fluxes in Table 1. The authors argue that this is the first long-term underground measurement providing full spectral characterization from 10^-4 eV to 20 MeV.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainties are reliable, this is a valuable result for rare-event search experiments, providing both a long-term average flux and a spectral shape for background simulations in LSC Hall A. The work builds on the authors' earlier rate-evolution study [3] and agrees with the shorter 2011 measurement [9] and with an independent measurement at a different Hall A location [8]. The use of four unfolding codes and a fixed thermal anchor from a direct two-detector ratio are useful cross-checks. However, the significance of the spectral claim depends critically on the systematic uncertainties associated with the GEANT4 response matrix, the FLUKA prior, and the unfolding procedure. The manuscript itself acknowledges residuals in Fig. 3 but does not propagate their effect into Table 1; this is the main gap and must be addressed before the spectral-characterization claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)

[Table 1 and Fig. 3] The quoted uncertainties in Table 1 are propagated from counting statistics only, as stated in the text, yet Fig. 3 shows rate residuals that the text attributes to 'systematic uncertainties in the deconvolution procedure—coming either from the algorithm, the prior or the calculated response.' The residuals are comparable to or larger than the statistical errors on several detectors. The result is that the 4–8% error tags on the spectral components are not total uncertainties. The authors should either quantify the systematic contribution from the response/prior (e.g., by perturbing the response matrix or using alternative priors) or explicitly state that Table 1 errors are statistical-only and add a systematic uncertainty budget.
[Eq. (3) and thermal anchor] The thermal flux is fixed to the value derived from Eq. (3) and used as the first bin of the prior in BAYES/CHIMEM. Thus the BAYES/CHIMEM thermal flux is not an independent unfolding result, and the total flux includes this fixed input. More importantly, the spread in the unconstrained GRAVEL/MAXED thermal fluxes (4.2 and 3.0×10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1, Table 1) around the fixed 3.4×10^-6 value is 12–24%, much larger than the quoted 6% statistical uncertainty on the thermal flux. This spread is not reflected in Table 1's errors. The authors should discuss whether this spread is a lower bound on the thermal-systematic uncertainty and propagate it into the total flux and spectral shape.
[Detector exclusion and E10] The manuscript excludes E10 from the deconvolution because it 'introduced an artificial peak in the spectrum at ~2×10^-7 MeV,' and states that excluding E5 and/or E8 changes the agreement between measured and reconstructed rates. These are exactly the kind of sensitivity checks that can expose response-matrix or unfolding biases, but no quantitative effect on the resulting fluxes is given. The authors should show, for example, how the epithermal, fast, and total fluxes in Table 1 change when E10 is included and when E5/E8 are excluded, and justify the chosen detector selection against those variations. Without this, the stability of the central spectral result is not demonstrated.
[Prior and response dependence] The prior is a FLUKA simulation for Portland concrete from [12] recalculated here, but the concrete composition in Hall A is stated to be unknown. The high-energy component is deliberately omitted from the prior, and the response matrix comes from a single GEANT4 simulation. Since all four unfolding algorithms share the same response matrix, their agreement on the total flux (14.6–14.9×10^-6) does not validate the response matrix or the spectral split. The authors should provide at least a sensitivity study using a different concrete composition in the prior and/or a renormalized response, and show whether the integrated fluxes in Table 1 remain within the quoted errors.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract says 'total energy-integrated flux' while the final paragraph says 'total neutron flux, with full spectral characterization.' The wording is slightly redundant; consider simplifying.
[Table 1] The algorithm names 'GRAVEL' and 'MAXED' are typeset with a space ('GRA VEL') in several places. This should be corrected.
[Data availability] The Data Availability Statement says no data will be deposited, but the analysis relies on rates published in Table 2 of [3] and the response shown in Fig. 1. Consider making the response matrix available as supplementary material to support reproducibility.
[Section 3, Eq. (2)-(3)] The approximation ϵ_E10,th ≈ 0 and ϵ_E1,ep ≈ ϵ_E10,ep that justifies Eq. (3) is stated but not quantified. A sentence giving the actual response-matrix values (e.g., the ratio ϵ_E1,ep/ϵ_E10,ep) would strengthen the thermal-flux derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermal anchor is an explicit direct measurement, not a hidden fitted prediction, and the remaining spectrum is data-constrained and cross-checked.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The thermal flux is obtained directly from the bare and Cd-lined counter rates through Eq. 3, using the stated approximations (epsilon_E10,th ~ 0 and epsilon_E1,ep ~ epsilon_E10,ep). The paper transparently states that this value is then fixed as the first bin of the prior in the BAYES/CHIMEM unfolding, so the reported thermal flux is a measured input, not an output of the deconvolution. The epithermal and fast components are determined by unfolding the measured rates from [3] with the GEANT4 response, and the reconstructed rates are compared with data in Fig. 3. The FLUKA prior from [12] is recalculated and used only as an initial guess; it does not by itself fix the spectral result. The total flux is cross-checked against an independent earlier measurement in [9] and an external measurement in [8], and the four-algorithm comparison provides additional robustness. Self-citations to [3], [7], [9], and [12] provide data, methods, and prior, but none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as an unverified premise that forces the central result. The acknowledged spread between GRAVEL/MAXED thermal values and the response-matrix systematics is an uncertainty/robustness concern, not a circularity, and is not hidden in the derivation. Therefore, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

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

The unfolding of neutron rates into a spectrum depends on three externally supplied ingredients: the simulated response matrix, the FLUKA prior, and the Eq. 2 approximations; none are independently verified inside this paper. The only numbers chosen during analysis are the fixed thermal-bin value (derived from Eq. 3) and the 300-iteration stopping point.

free parameters (2)

Thermal flux fixed in deconvolution = 3.4(2)e-6 cm^-2 s^-1 (full 248-day period); 2.9(2)e-6 when first 3 months excluded
Determined from bare and Cd-lined counters (Eq. 3) and then fixed as the first-bin input to BAYES/CHIMEM; since the total flux is the integral of the unfolded spectrum, the headline total includes this input value as a component rather than a fully independent measurement.
Unfolding iteration count = 300
Chosen because reduced chi-square between measured and reconstructed rates stabilized near 300 iterations; changing this regularizes differently and would alter the fluctuation level of the spectrum.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption GEANT4-simulated HENSA response matrix (49 energy bins, Fig. 1) accurately represents true detector efficiencies.
Used as the kernel in Eq. 1; any error in ε_ij propagates directly into the unfolded spectrum. The paper notes residual discrepancies with data attributable to 'the algorithm, the prior or the calculated response' without quantifying them.
domain assumption FLUKA-computed spectrum for Portland concrete (black dotted line, Fig. 2) is a valid prior for the neutron field in Hall A.
The prior seeds the iterative unfolding; bins where detectors are weakly sensitive will inherit the prior. Concrete composition in Hall A is stated to be unknown.
domain assumption Approximations in Eq. 2: ε_E10,th ≃ 0 and ε_E1,ep ≃ ε_E10,ep.
Required to eliminate epithermal contribution and derive thermal flux via Eq. 3; deviations enter as unsystematic error not included in the quoted 0.2×10^-6 uncertainty.
domain assumption Neutron field is stationary enough over the 248-day period that a single unfolded spectrum is meaningful.
Text reports thermal rate ~16% higher in first 3 months and gives different thermal flux (2.9 vs 3.4) when that period is excluded; the headline result uses the full period.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the ambient neutron flux and spectral distribution at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNXB72VB

@misc{pith2026251219857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the ambient neutron flux and spectral distribution at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNXB72VB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19857}
}

abstract

We report on the measurement of the ambient neutron flux and its energy distribution over a broad range of neutron energies, conducted in Hall A of the Canfranc Underground Laboratory using the High Efficiency Neutron Spectrometry Array (HENSA), with a total livetime of 248 days. In particular, we obtained a thermal neutron flux of $3.4(2) \times 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and a total energy-integrated flux of $14.8(2) \times 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. This work represents the first long-term measurement of the ambient neutron flux that includes a full spectral characterization across a wide energy interval (from $10^{-4}$ eV to 20 MeV), performed in an underground laboratory to date. The results are relevant for rare-event search experiments located underground, ranging from nuclear astrophysics to astroparticle physics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references

[3]

Orrigo, J.L

S.E.A. Orrigo, J.L. Tain, N. Mont-Geli, A. Tar- ife˜ no-Saldivia, L.M. Fraile, M. Grieger, J. Agra- munt, A. Algora, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, G. Cort´ es, A.D. Blas, I. Dillmann, A.D. Bugar ´ ın, R. Garct ´ ıa, E. Nacher, A. Tolosa-Delgado, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal C82, 814 (2022)

2022
[9]

Jordan, J.L

D. Jordan, J.L. Tain, A. Algora, J. Agra- munt, C. Domingo-Pardo, M.B. Gomez-Hornillos, R. Caballero-Folch, G. Cort´ es, D. Cano-Ott, E. Mendoza, I. Bandac, A. Bettini, L.M. Fraile, C. Domingo, Astroparticle Physics42, 1 (2013). Corrigendum: Astroparticle Physics118, 102372 (2020)

2013
[8]

Plaza, T

J. Plaza, T. Mart ´ ınez, V. B´ ecares, D. Cano-Ott, D. Villamar ´ ın, A. P´ erez de Rada, E. Mendoza, V. Pesudo, R. Santorelli, C. Pe˜ na, J. Balibrea- Correa, A. Boeltzig, Astroparticle Physics146, 102793 (2023)

2023
[12]

Mont-Geli, A

N. Mont-Geli, A. Tarife˜ no-Saldivia, S.E.A. Orrigo, J.L. Ta ´ ın, M. Grieger, J. Agramunt, A. Algora, J. Amar´ e, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, S. Cebri´ an, I. Coarasa, G. Cort´ es, A.D. Blas, I. Dillmann, L.M. Fraile, E. Garc ´ ıa, R. Garc ´ ıa, M. Mart ´ ınez, E. Nacher, Y. Ortigoza, A. Ortiz, M. Pall` as, J. Puimed´ on, A. Salinas, M.L. Sarsa, A. Tolosa...

2022
[1]

Trzaska, M

W.H. Trzaska, M. Slupecki, I. Bandac, A. Bayo, A. Bettini, L. Bezrukov, T. Enqvist, A. Fazliakhme- tov, A. Ianni, L. Inzhechik, J. Joutsenvaara, P. Ku- usiniemi, K. Loo, B. Lubsandorzhiev, A. Nozik, C.P. Garay, M. Poliakova, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 721 (2019)

2019
[2]

HENSA, www.hensaproject.org
[4]

A. Best, J. G¨ orres, M. Junker, K.L. Kratz, M. Laubenstein, A. Long, S. Nisi, K. Smith, M. Wiescher, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 812, 1 (2016)

2016
[5]

Bertoni, G

R. Bertoni, G. Bruno, N. Burgio, M. Corcione, L. Cretara, M. Frullini, W. Fulgione, M.D. Matteis, A. Quintino, N. Redaelli, A. Santagata, E.A. Valli- celli, L. Zanotti, The European Physical Journal C 83, 354 (2023)

2023

Show all 16 references

[6]

Thomas, A.V

D.J. Thomas, A.V. Alevra, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel- erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment476, 12 (2002)

2002
[7]

Orrigo, J.L

S.E.A. Orrigo, J.L. Tain, N. Mont-Geli, A. Tar- ife˜ no-Saldivia, L.M. Fraile, M. Grieger, J. Agra- munt, A. Algora, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, G. Cort´ es, A.D. Blas, I. Dillmann, A.D. Bugar ´ ın, 5 R. Garct ´ ıa, E. Nacher, A. Tolosa, Journal of Physics: Conference Series215...

2022
[10]

Grieger, T

M. Grieger, T. Hensel, J. Agramunt, D. Bemmerer, D. Degering, I. Dillmann, L.M. Fraile, D. Jordan, U. K¨ oster, M. Marta, S.E. M¨ uller, T. Sz¨ ucs, J.L. Ta ´ ın, K. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D101, 123027 (2020)

2020
[11]

J. Tain, D. Cano-Ott, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel- erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment571, 728 (2007)

2007
[13]

Amar´ e, B

J. Amar´ e, B. Bauluz, B. Beltr´ an, J.M. Car- mona, S. Cebri´ an, E. Garc ´ ıa, H. G´ omez, I.G. Irastorza, G. Luz´ on, M. Mart ´ ınez, J. Morales, A.O. de Sol´ orzano, C. Pobes, J. Puimed´ on, A. Rodr ´ ıguez, J. Ruz, M.L. Sarsa, L. Torres, J.A. Villar, Journal of Physics: C...

2006
[14]

Mont Geli, A

N. Mont Geli, A. Tarife˜ no-Saldivia, G. Cort´ es, J.L. Tain, M. Grieger, A. Quero-Ballesteros, M. Pall` as, J. Agramunt, A. Algora, J. Amar´ e, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, D. Cano-Ott, S. Cebrian, D. Cintas, I. Coarasa, A. De Blas, I. Dillman, L.M. Fraile, E. Garc ´ ıa, R. Gar...

2023
[15]

Matzke, Radiation Protection Dosimetry107, 155 – 174 (2003)

M. Matzke, Radiation Protection Dosimetry107, 155 – 174 (2003)

2003
[16]

Reginatto, P

M. Reginatto, P. Goldhagen, S. Neumann, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment476, 242 (2002) AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the Span- ish Grants No. CEX2023-001292-S, PID2022...

2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Orrigo, J.L

S.E.A. Orrigo, J.L. Tain, N. Mont-Geli, A. Tar- ife˜ no-Saldivia, L.M. Fraile, M. Grieger, J. Agra- munt, A. Algora, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, G. Cort´ es, A.D. Blas, I. Dillmann, A.D. Bugar ´ ın, R. Garct ´ ıa, E. Nacher, A. Tolosa-Delgado, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal C82, 814 (2022)

2022

[2] [9]

Jordan, J.L

D. Jordan, J.L. Tain, A. Algora, J. Agra- munt, C. Domingo-Pardo, M.B. Gomez-Hornillos, R. Caballero-Folch, G. Cort´ es, D. Cano-Ott, E. Mendoza, I. Bandac, A. Bettini, L.M. Fraile, C. Domingo, Astroparticle Physics42, 1 (2013). Corrigendum: Astroparticle Physics118, 102372 (2020)

2013

[3] [8]

Plaza, T

J. Plaza, T. Mart ´ ınez, V. B´ ecares, D. Cano-Ott, D. Villamar ´ ın, A. P´ erez de Rada, E. Mendoza, V. Pesudo, R. Santorelli, C. Pe˜ na, J. Balibrea- Correa, A. Boeltzig, Astroparticle Physics146, 102793 (2023)

2023

[4] [12]

Mont-Geli, A

N. Mont-Geli, A. Tarife˜ no-Saldivia, S.E.A. Orrigo, J.L. Ta ´ ın, M. Grieger, J. Agramunt, A. Algora, J. Amar´ e, D. Bemmerer, F. Calvi˜ no, S. Cebri´ an, I. Coarasa, G. Cort´ es, A.D. Blas, I. Dillmann, L.M. Fraile, E. Garc ´ ıa, R. Garc ´ ıa, M. Mart ´ ınez, E. Nacher, Y. Ortigoza, A. Ortiz, M. Pall` as, J. Puimed´ on, A. Salinas, M.L. Sarsa, A. Tolosa...

2022

[5] [1]

Trzaska, M

W.H. Trzaska, M. Slupecki, I. Bandac, A. Bayo, A. Bettini, L. Bezrukov, T. Enqvist, A. Fazliakhme- tov, A. Ianni, L. Inzhechik, J. Joutsenvaara, P. Ku- usiniemi, K. Loo, B. Lubsandorzhiev, A. Nozik, C.P. Garay, M. Poliakova, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 721 (2019)

2019

[6] [2]

HENSA, www.hensaproject.org

[7] [4]

A. Best, J. G¨ orres, M. Junker, K.L. Kratz, M. Laubenstein, A. Long, S. Nisi, K. Smith, M. Wiescher, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 812, 1 (2016)

2016

[8] [5]

Bertoni, G

R. Bertoni, G. Bruno, N. Burgio, M. Corcione, L. Cretara, M. Frullini, W. Fulgione, M.D. Matteis, A. Quintino, N. Redaelli, A. Santagata, E.A. Valli- celli, L. Zanotti, The European Physical Journal C 83, 354 (2023)

2023