50 53

Cr and Cr neutron capture cross sections measurement at the n_TOF facility at

CERN
P. Pérez-Maroto,1, 2 C. Guerrero,1, 2 A. Casanovas,3 B. Fernández,1, 2 E. Mendoza,4 V. Alcayne,4
J. Lerendegui-Marco,5 C. Domingo-Pardo,5 J. M. Quesada,1 R. Capote,6 O. Aberle,7 S. Altieri,8, 9
S. Amaducci,10 J. Andrzejewski,11 V. Babiano-Suarez,5 M. Bacak,7 J. Balibrea-Correa,5 C. Beltrami,8
S. Bennett,12 A. P. Bernardes,7 E. Berthoumieux,13 R. Beyer,14 M. Boromiza,15 D. Bosnar,16 M. Caamaño,17
F. Calviño,3 M. Calviani,7 D. Cano-Ott,4 D. M. Castelluccio,18, 19 F. Cerutti,7 G. Cescutti,20, 21
S. Chasapoglou,22 E. Chiaveri,7, 12 P. Colombetti,23, 24 N. Colonna,25 P. Console Camprini,19, 18 G. Cortés,3
M. A. Cortés-Giraldo,1 L. Cosentino,10 S. Cristallo,26, 27 S. F. Dellmann,28 M. Diakaki,22 M. Di
Castro,7 M. Dietz,29 S. Di Maria,30 R. Dressler,31 E. Dupont,13 I. Durán,17 Z. Eleme,32 S. Fargier,7
B. Fernández-Domínguez,17 P. Finocchiaro,10 S. Fiore,18, 33 V. Furman,34 F. García-Infantes,35, 7
A. Gawlik-Ramięga,11 G. Gervino,23, 24 S. Gilardoni,7 E. González-Romero,4 F. Gunsing,13 C. Gustavino,33
J. Heyse,36 W. Hillman,12 D. G. Jenkins,37 E. Jericha,38 A. Junghans,14 Y. Kadi,7 K. Kaperoni,22 G. Kaur,13
arXiv:2506.17161v1 [nucl-ex] 20 Jun 2025

A. Kimura,39 I. Knapová,40 M. Kokkoris,22 Y. Kopatch,34 M. Krtička,40 N. Kyritsis,22 I. Ladarescu,5

C. Lederer-Woods,41 G. Lerner,7 A. Manna,19, 42 T. Martínez,4 A. Masi,7 C. Massimi,19, 42 P. Mastinu,43
M. Mastromarco,25, 44 E. A. Maugeri,31 A. Mazzone,25, 45 A. Mengoni,18, 19 V. Michalopoulou,22 P. M. Milazzo,20
R. Mucciola,26, 46 F. Murtas† ,47 E. Musacchio González,43 A. Musumarra,48, 49 A. Negret,15 N. Patronis,32, 7
J. A. Pavón,1, 7 M. G. Pellegriti,48 A. Pérez de Rada Fiol,4 J. Perkowski,11 C. Petrone,15 E. Pirovano,29 J. Plaza
del Olmo,4 S. Pomp,50 I. Porras,35 J. Praena,35 R. Reifarth,28 D. Rochman,31 Y. Romanets,30 C. Rubbia,7
A. Sánchez-Caballero,4 M. Sabaté-Gilarte,7 P. Schillebeeckx,36 D. Schumann,31 A. Sekhar,12 A. G. Smith,12
N. V. Sosnin,41 M. E. Stamati,32, 7 A. Sturniolo,23 G. Tagliente,25 A. Tarifeño-Saldivia,3 D. Tarrío,50
P. Torres-Sánchez,35 S. Urlass,14, 7 E. Vagena,32 S. Valenta,40 V. Variale,25 P. Vaz,30 G. Vecchio,10 D. Vescovi,28
V. Vlachoudis,7 R. Vlastou,22 A. Wallner,14 P. J. Woods,41 T. Wright,12 R. Zarrella,19, 42 and P. Žugec16
(The n_TOF Collaboration)
1
Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
2
Centro Nacional de Aceleradores (CNA), Spain
3
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
4
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Spain
5
Instituto de Física Corpuscular, CSIC - Universidad de Valencia, Spain
6
NAPC–Nuclear Data Section, International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria
7
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Switzerland
8
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pavia, Italy
9
Department of Physics, University of Pavia, Italy
10
INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania, Italy
11
University of Lodz, Poland
12
University of Manchester, United Kingdom
13
CEA Irfu, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
14
Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany
15
Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Romania
16
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
17
University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
18
Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile (ENEA), Italy
19
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bologna, Italy
20
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste, Italy
21
Department of Physics, University of Trieste, Italy
22
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
23
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Italy
24
Department of Physics, University of Torino, Italy
25
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari, Italy
26
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Perugia, Italy
27
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica - Osservatorio Astronomico d’Abruzzo, Italy
28
Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
29
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Bundesallee 100, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
30
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal
31
Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland
32
University of Ioannina, Greece
33
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma1, Roma, Italy
 2

34
Affiliated with an institute covered by a cooperation agreement with CERN
35
University of Granada, Spain
36
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium
37
University of York, United Kingdom
38
TU Wien, Atominstitut, Stadionallee 2, 1020 Wien, Austria
39
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Tokai-Mura, Japan
40
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
41
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
42
Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Bologna, Italy
43
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Italy
44
Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Bari, Italy
45
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Bari, Italy
46
Dipartimento di Fisica e Geologia, Università di Perugia, Italy
47
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Italy
48
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania, Italy
49
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania, Italy
50
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, 75120 Uppsala, Sweden
Background: 50,53 Cr are very relevant in criticality safety benchmarks related to nuclear reactors. The discrep-
ancies of up to 30% between the neutron capture cross section evaluations have an important effect on the kef f
and k∞ in criticality benchmarks particularly sensitive to chromium.
Purpose: The 50,53 Cr(n,γ) cross sections is to be determined between 1 and 100 keV with an 8-10% accuracy
following the requirements of the NEA High Priority Request List (HPRL) to solve the current discrepancies.
Method: We have measured the neutron capture cross sections by the time-of-flight technique at the EAR1
experimental area of the n_TOF facility, using an array of four C6 D6 detectors with very low neutron sensitivity.
The highly-enriched samples used are significantly thinner than in previous measurements, thus minimizing the
multiple-scattering effects.
Results: We have produced, and analyzed with the R-matrix analysis code SAMMY, capture yields featuring 33
resonances of 50 Cr and 51 of 53 Cr with an accuracy between 5% and 9%, hence fulfilling the requirements made
by the NEA. The differential and integral cross sections have been compared to previous data and evaluations.
Conclusions: The new 50,53 Cr(n,γ) cross sections measured at the CERN n_TOF facility provide a valuable
input for upcoming evaluations, which are deemed necessary given that the results presented herein do not support
the increase in both cross sections proposed in the recent INDEN evaluation.

I. INTRODUCTION The need of new measurements is related to the limited

accuracy and experimental issues of the previous ones.
Chromium is a relatively light isotope, and it is char-
In a context of increasing energy demand worldwide,
acterized by its large scattering-to-capture cross section
nuclear energy has been recently recognized by the Eu-
ratio, especially at neutron energies En between 1 and
ropean Commission crucial to reduce greenhouse gases
10 keV, where several resonances with a large scatter-
emissions [1]. This framework requires nuclear energy to
ing cross section are found. They are sometimes referred
progress in terms of efficiency and safety performance,
to as a s-wave resonance cluster. Therefore, the neu-
which needs to be addressed through a large effort on
tron capture and transmission measurements of 50,53 Cr
criticality safety research programs [2].
made with relatively thick samples in the last decades
In nuclear reactors, chromium is an important compo- of the XX century [5–8] suffered from high sensitivity to
nent (11-26% abundance) of the stainless steel used as scattered neutrons and strong multiple-scattering effects.
a structural material, and thus its neutron-interaction More recently, in 2011 a neutron capture and transmis-
cross section plays an important role in the associ- sion measurement of natural and 53 Cr was performed by
ated neutronic calculations. In particular, Trkov [3] Guber et al. [9] at ORNL ORELA using low neutron sen-
reported significant discrepancies between calculations sitivity detectors, but the multiple-scattering was still an
and integral measurements when performing kef f and issue, as discussed later by Nobre et al. [10]. Consid-
k∞ criticality benchmarks sensitive to chromium like ering the capture and transmission data from Ref. [9]
HEU-COMP-INTER-005/4=KBR-15/Cr or PU-MET- together with another (unpublished) ORELA transmis-
INTER-002. These are due to the discrepancies of sion data from Harvey et al., Leal et al. [11] produced
about 30% between the chromium cross sections li- a cross section evaluation that has been adopted in
braries/evaluations. These findings led to a new entry JEFF-3.3 [12], ENDF/B-VIII.0 [13], JENDL-5 [14] and
in the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High Priority Re- BROND-3.1 [15]; while CENDL-3.2 [16] is based on the
quest List (HPRL) [4] calling for a new neutron capture data published before 2011. Only a few years ago the new
cross section measurement of 50 Cr and 53 Cr between 1 INDEN evaluation [17] has been released (and adopted
and 100 keV with an accuracy of 8-10%.
 3

in ENDF/B-VIII.1 [18]), proposing a significant increase B. Chromium and ancillary samples

of the capture cross section of both 50 Cr and 53 Cr based
on a re-analysis by Nobre et al. [10] of the data from More than 80% of natural chromium is composed by
Stieglitz et al. [5] and Guber et al. [9] in which issues 52
Cr, hence this measurement required enriched samples
with the sample thickness are identified and addressed to minimize backgrounds from all reactions occurring on
through detailed MCNP based multiple-scattering cor- isotopes others than those of interest: 50 Cr and 53 Cr.
rections. This new evaluation provide a better perfor- Highly enriched chromium oxide Cr2 O3 was purchased
mance on aforementioned criticality benchmarks. Over- from Trace Science International, with the isotopic com-
all, the discrepancies in the chromium cross sections in positions given in Table I. A small amount of Cu and
the evaluations have a large impact of about 1000 pcm Mo was detected in the 50 Cr and 53 Cr samples respec-
(or a 1%) in the mentioned criticality calculations. tively, but these elements did not affect the measurement
In this context, and in response to the NEA HPRL because only their strongest resonances were visible on
request, two measurements have been designed and per- the time-of-flight spectra and they are below the energy
formed: a time-of-flight measurement at n_TOF-EAR1 range of interest. Their contribution in the energy range
carried out during summer 2022, and a 50 Cr neutron of interest was negligible.
activation measurement at the HiSPANoS facility of As neutron multiple-scattering effects are believed to
CNA [19, 20] performed in winter 2023, in which the be the main issues in previous experiments, the samples
Maxwellian Averaged Cross Section at kT = 30 keV for this measurement were designed to be much thinner
MACS30 of 50 Cr has been determined experimentally for that those in all previous cases, thus minimizing these
the first time [21]. In this work we describe and dis- effects. Two samples were made for each isotope: a very
cuss the n_TOF measurement, of which preliminary re- thin one to measure between 1 and 10 keV, and a thicker
sults were presented in the WONDER 2023 Workshop one, but still thinner than those used in previous ex-
(see Ref. [22]). The experimental set-up is described in periments, to cover the range from 10 to 100 keV with
Sec. II, the extraction of the capture yield is detailed in enough statistics. The physical characteristics of each
Sec. III, and the R-matrix resonance analysis and the sample are summarized in Table II, where the mass re-
results obtained are described in Sec. IV. Last, the con- ported corresponds to the total amount of chromium ox-
clusions of this work are summarized in Sec. V. ide, from which the atomic thickness nat corresponding to
the chromium atoms is calculated assuming the isotopic
composition and uncertainty provided by the supplier of
the material.
The powder was pressed into a pellet inside a 20 mm di-
II. MEASUREMENT AT N_TOF ameter, 0.5 mm thick and 4.5 mm tall (or 11.5 mm for the
53
Cr-thick sample) PEEK capsule with the top closed by
A. The n_TOF facility at CERN a thin Mylar layer. This design minimizes neutron cap-
ture in the capsule, allows for a regular visual inspection
of the pressed pellet to verify its integrity (as it needed to
The neutrons at n_TOF are produced via spalla- be moved in and out of the beam several times during the
tion when 20 GeV/c2 proton pulses from the Proton- irradiation), and avoids losing material if the pellet would
Synchrotron (PS) accelerator of CERN impinge on a break. A series of X-ray Computed Tomographies (CT)
cylindrical ∼1 ton lead target [23], producing around were performed by the MME Group at CERN to each
300 neutrons per proton. These pulses have a nominal chromium sample to measure their thickness (expressed
intensity of 8·1012 (Dedicated ) and 3·1012 (Parasitic) pro- in mm in Table II) and identify any significant inhomo-
tons per pulse, with an average repetition rate of 0.8 Hz geneity. The CT of the 50 Cr-thick sample is shown in Fig.
and a temporal width (RMS) of 7 ns. The produced neu- 1 as an example, where local variations of the thickness
trons are then partially moderated, allowing for an en- and a slightly concave meniscus at its edges can be ob-
ergy distribution ranging from meV to GeV. Afterwards, served. Monte Carlo simulations have shown that these
they travel towards three experimental areas: EAR1 [24] aspects did not affect significantly the extraction of the
with a horizontal 185 m flight path, EAR2 [25] with a capture cross section [22]. The samples were placed in
19 m vertical flight path and NEAR [26], located at only the center of a 50 mm diameter aluminium ring, glued
3 m from the spallation target. on a Mylar foil, which is the conventional sample holder
The goal of the experiment was to measure the for neutron capture experiments at n_TOF EAR1. The
chromium neutron capture cross sections with high pre- 53
Cr-thick sample mounted in the measuring position is
cision in the resonance region, between 1 and 100 keV, shown in Fig. 2.
which requires a very good neutron energy resolution that In addition to the chromium samples, a series of an-
is provided only at the EAR1 measuring station due to cillary measurements were performed with the following
its long flight path. Overall, the experiment presented samples:
herein received ∼ 7.5 · 105 pulses during 6 weeks, accu-
mulating a total of ∼ 4 · 1018 protons on target. • the two versions (4.5 and 11.5 mm tall) of the
 4

FIG. 1. X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) profile of the

50
Cr-thick sample, showing a meniscus and some variation in
the thickness. The dashed line indicates the average thickness.

TABLE I. Isotopic composition of the enriched chromium ox-

ide used for the measurement.
Enrichment (%)
Sample 50
Cr 52 Cr 53 Cr 54 Cr
50
Cr2 O3 94.6(4) 4.92 0.4 0.08
53
Cr2 O3 0.03 2.19 97.7(2) 0.08
FIG. 2. Capture set-up for the chromium experimental cam-
paign at n_TOF EAR1, with the C6 D6 detectors placed at
8 cm distance at a 125◦ backward angle with respect to the
PEEK capsule without powder inside to measure beam. Inset: the samples, like the 53 Cr-thick one of the pic-
the background from neutron capture and scatter- ture, are glued into a Mylar foil held by an aluminium ring.
ing in the capsule.
• a natural carbon sample as a proxy for the study
of the background from neutron scattering in
chromium. cascades (see Sec. III C). The detectors were placed at
• two gold samples (20 and 80 mm diameter with 8 cm from the sample position, at a 125 degrees back-
100 µm thickness) for neutron energy calibration ward angle with respect to the neutron beam, as shown
and normalization through the Saturated Reso- in Fig. 2, to reduce the background produced by in-beam
nance Method [27]. photons undergoing Compton scattering in the sample,
and to minimize possible anisotropies in the gamma-ray
• an empty aluminium ring with Mylar to determine emission for resonances with orbital angular momentum
the overall background common to all measure- ℓ > 0.
ments, independently of the sample employed.
As it is customary at n_TOF, the intensity of the pro-
ton pulses was monitored with a Beam Current Trans-
C. Experimental set-up former (BCT), and the number of neutrons using the Sili-
con Monitor (SiMon) [31], which is based on the standard
The neutron capture detection set-up consisted of an 6
Li(n,α)3 H reaction. The ratio between the SiMon count-
array of four C6 D6 detectors [28] with a cylindrical active ing rate and the BCT value remained constant during the
volume of 1 L, encapsulated in a carbon fiber housing. whole campaign within 2.5%, which is then considered as
This design by Plag et al. [29] reduces the neutron sensi- the systematic uncertainty in the normalization between
tivity of the detectors, which is needed to reduce as much different runs and samples. This allows to normalize the
as possible the background related to the large neutron measured counting rates as counts per nominal pulse, i.e.,
scattering cross section in chromium. They also feature 8 · 1012 protons, as given by the BCT.
a very small gamma-ray detection efficiency, an attribute
needed to apply the Pulse Height Weighting Technique The signals from all detectors and monitors were reg-
(PHWT) [30] to asses the efficiency for detecting capture istered with the n_TOF DAQ [32, 33], based on SPDe-
vices ADQ14DC flash ADC digitizers, each unit featur-
ing 4 channels with 14-bit resolution and 1 GHz sam-
TABLE II. Physical properties of the four chromium samples ple rate. The digitized signals were stored temporally
(see text for more details). in local computers, and then sent to the CERN Tape
Archive [34]. They were processed by a Pulse Shape
Sample Mass (mg) Thickness (mm) nat (10−3 at/barn) Analysis (PSA) routine specifically developed for n_TOF
50
Cr-thin 247(1) 0.62(3) 0.640(3) data, with enough versatility to adapt to the particular-
50
Cr-thick 723(3) 1.81(9) 1.873(7)
ities of each type of detector [35]. As a result, all the
53
Cr-thin 479(1) 1.61(5) 1.194(2)
information about each signal like amplitude or time is
53
Cr-thick 2362(5) 6.84(24) 5.885(12)
stored in ROOT [36] files for further processing.
 5

III. DETERMINATION OF THE CAPTURE (RF) of the facility [40, 41]. Because of the random mod-
YIELD eration length of the neutrons inside the spallation target
and the borated water moderator, the relation between
The quantity aimed to be determined from the time- the time-of-flight (or flight path) and the neutron energy
of-flight measurement is the capture yield, defined as the is not univocal. This complex relationship is described
number of captures per incident neutron as a function of by the RF, and one of its effects is to displace the energy
the neutron energy. Experimentally, the capture yield is position of the resonances. One way of taking this into
extracted from the following expression: account is to include the term tof f into Eq. (2).
The neutron energy was calibrated using the capture
Cw (En ) − Bw (En ) yield of 197 Au, whose resonance energies are well known
Y (En ) = FP HW T , (1)
Ec · Φ(En ) · FBIF below 2 keV. The yield was analyzed with the R-matrix
Bayesian code SAMMY [42] (see Sec. IV), including
where Cw and Bw are the total and background weighted a numerical version of the n_TOF RF obtained from
counting rates (neglecting dead-time corrections because simulations. The nominal resonance energies found in
of the low counting rates), Ec the capture cascade en- JEFF-3.3 were represented against the reconstructed val-
ergy (see Sec. III C), Φ the neutron flux at EAR1, FBIF ues from the time-of-flight, as shown in Fig. 3. Then, a
the fraction of the neutron flux seen by the sample, and simultaneous fit of L and tof f was performed, obtaining
FP HW T a correction factor associated with the PHWT. L = 183.94(4) m and tof f = −17.57(4) ns, which allowed
The analysis to obtain all these quantities is detailed in to reproduce the energy of the 197 Au resonances within
the following sections. 0.1%.

A. Detector and time-of-flight calibration B. Background determination

The detectors were calibrated once per week both in As mentioned in Sec. II B, a series of measurements
γ-ray deposited energy and resolution using radioactive with auxiliary samples were performed in order to es-
sources of 137 Cs, 88 Y and 241 Am-9 Be which emit γ-rays of timate the background. The different sources of back-
0.662, 0.898 and 1.836, and 4.438 MeV, respectively. The ground can be classified depending on whether their ori-
end point of 197 Au capture cascade at 6.512 MeV was also gin is sample-related or sample-independent.
included in order to extend the deposited energy range. The sample-independent background can be estimated
These measurements were complemented with GEANT4 by measuring a replica of the samples with the chromium
simulations [37, 38] of the C6 D6 detectors response, in removed. For that matter, an empty PEEK capsule (4.5
which a realistic model of the experimental area and the and 11.5 mm tall) was measured, and also an empty alu-
whole capture set-up was implemented. A small gain minium ring as dummy for measurements of gold and
shift (∼ 2% over the full campaign) was observed, espe- carbon (see below).
cially on one of the detectors, and thus the experiment The sample-related background is mainly due to neu-
was divided into six periods, each with its own energy trons scattered by the sample and then captured in its
calibration. surrounding material, with a consequent γ-ray detected.
A detection threshold of 150 keV in deposited energy Additional background could come from the scattering of
was applied to reject the low amplitude signals with a in-beam γ-rays. However, it is restricted only to high Z
strong contribution from noise, low energy background samples and in our case it can be neglected. The sample-
and the afterpulses from the PMT [39] that were not related background has been estimated by measuring a
identified as such by the PSA. The relation between the nat
C sample, which acts as a pure neutron scatterer be-
rise time and the FHWM of the signals, which is differ- cause its very low capture cross section. Its low Z also al-
ent for real signals and afterpulses, was also used as a lows neglecting the scattering of in-beam γ-rays. The re-
discrimination tool. sulting spectrum from measuring carbon has to be scaled
The kinetic energy of the neutrons is determined from by a factor Fn to take into account the different physical
the time it takes them to travel from the spallation target characteristics of each sample and the scattering cross
to the sample by means of the following non-relativistic section that differs from chromium. This factor has been
relation: calculated as:
nat,Cr D σel,Cr E
1 mn · L 2 Fn = , (3)
En = , (2) nat,C σel,C
2 (t − tγ + L/c + tof f )2
with nat the atomic thickness of each sample, and
where mn is the mass of the neutron, L is the flight path hσel,Cr /σel,C i the average ratio between Cr and C elastic
length, t the time stamp of the signal, tγ the time at cross sections in the range between 100 eV and 100 keV.In
which the relativistic particles from the beam are ob- reality, Fn depends on the neutron energy and its ac-
served (known as γ-flash), c is the speed of light and tof f curate calculation requires involved Monte Carlo simu-
is an offset parameter related to the Resolution Function lations, as discussed by Žugec et al. [43]. However, as
 6

2 the estimated backgrounds. The total background is very

Resonances close to the counts in the valleys between resonances. The
Fit to Eq. 2
sample-related component (green line) is then small, ex-
Neutron energy (keV)

1.5 cept for the 53 Cr-thick sample. In this case, the back-
L = 183.94(4) m ground is still significant at the tail of the strong s-wave
resonances below 10 keV, but the cross section in this
toff = -17.57(4) ns region is determined from the 53 Cr-thin sample.
1 The total background depicted in Fig. 4 is thus consid-
ered a good estimation and hence was subtracted. The
remaining smooth background component is included in
0.5 the resonance analysis with SAMMY [42] (see Sec. IV).

C. Total Energy Detection technique

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time of flight (µs) In order to eliminate the dependency of detection ef-
0.1 ficiency to different decay patterns from different reso-
This work nances, the Total Energy Detection (TED) technique [30,
44] is used in this work. This treatment requires that
0.08 SAMMY (JEFF-3.3)
the efficiency of the γ-ray detection system εγ is i) low
enough so that as most one photon of the capture cas-
Capture yield

0.06 cade is detected, and ii) proportional to the energy of

the γ-ray, εγ = k · Eγ . If the proportionality fac-
tor k = 1, the efficiency for detecting the cascade is
0.04 εc = Ec = Sn + A+1 A
En , with Ec the energy of the cas-
cade, Sn the neutron separation energy, A the atomic
0.02 mass of the target nucleus and En the energy of the cap-
tured neutron. This means that εc becomes numerically
equal to the cascade energy, and therefore, independent
0 of the de-excitation path of each cascade.
450 500 550 600 650 The C6 D6 detectors described herein do not fulfil the
Neutron energy (eV) second condition. However, this can be bypassed by using
the Pulse Height Weighting Technique (PHWT) [30, 45].
FIG. 3. Top: Fit of the L and tof f parameters of the time-of- This technique is based on the weighting of each detected
flight to neutron energy calibration. The points correspond to signal Edep by an energy dependent Weighting Function
resonances of 197 Au. Bottom: Illustration of the good agree- (WF) in such a way that εγ = Eγ . The WF was ob-
ment (within 0.1%) of the 197 Au resonance energies between tained for each sample by simulating the response of
this work and the reference JEFF-3.3 cross section.
the detectors to mono-energetic γ-rays, using a realistic
GEANT4 model of the experimental area and the capture
shown in Fig. 4, the approximation applied herein is suf- set-up [46]. A total of 106 events of 56 mono-energetic
ficient for determining resonance parameters, since the γ-rays between 50 keV and 10 MeV have been simulated,
neutron scattering background is sizeable only in the res- scoring the energy deposition of each event Edep .
onance valleys. The dip in the spectra near 6 keV is due Additionally, a correction factor FP HW T has been es-
to the neutron captures in the aluminium windows of the timated to account for the overall effect due to:
beam line. This is removed from the final capture yield • the fraction of non-detected γ-rays because of the
so that it does not interfere with the resonance analysis. detection threshold of Edep = 150 keV;
To minimize the fluctuations due to the limited statis-
tics on the background measurements, the energy depen- • the (small) possibility to detect more than one
dence of the background spectra was parametrized using γ-ray per cascade in a given detector (multiple-
the following form: counting), even when the detection efficiency is
small (e.g. 3% for the 662 keV γ-ray emission from
n
X 137
Cs);
bi 1 − e−ci En e−di En , (4)


B(En ) = a0 +
i=1 • the possible emission of electrons from internal con-
version instead of γ-rays.
where a0 , bi , ci and di are free parameters, n = 3 for the
sample-independent and n = 2 for the sample-related These effects have been considered simultaneously [44],
background. The total counting rates of each of the four estimating FP HW T by simulating the response of the de-
chromium samples are displayed in Fig. 4 together with tectors not to individual γ-rays but to capture cascades
 7

50 50
Cr-thin Cr-thick
Counts/bin/8⋅1012 protons Sample-independent Sample-independent

Counts/bin/8⋅1012 protons
Sample-related Sample-related
Total background Total background
10−2 10−2

10−3 10−3

10−4 10−4
103 104
10 5
103 104 105
Neutron energy (eV) Neutron energy (eV)
53 53
Cr-thin Cr-thick
Sample-independent 10−1 Sample-independent
10−1
Counts/bin/8⋅1012 protons

Counts/bin/8⋅1012 protons
Sample-related Sample-related
Total background Total background

10−2 10−2

10−3 10−3

103 104 105 103 104 105

Neutron energy (eV) Neutron energy (eV)

FIG. 4. Measured spectra with the background considered for the 50

Cr (top) and 53
Cr (bottom). The individual background
lines correspond to fits using Eq. (4).

emitted from each sample. This requires a set of realis-

TABLE III. Correction factors FP HW T for each individual
tic capture cascades, which have been obtained with the
sample and detector. The systematic uncertainty of the indi-
cascade generator software NuDEX [47]. NuDEX takes vidual values is 1.7% (see text for details, is not included).
the level scheme and the branching ratios below a certain
excitation energy from ENSDF [48]. At higher energies, FP HW T
where the levels and branching ratios are not known, they Sample C6 D6 #1 C6 D6 #2 C6 D6 #3 C6 D6 #4
are randomly generated according to statistical models of
197
Au 0.971 0.958 0.963 0.972
50
Cr-thin 0.981 0.978 0.980 0.979
the nuclear level density. Each set of levels and branching 50
Cr-thick 0.971 0.998 0.972 0.964
ratios between all of them but the initial state is called 53
Cr-thin 0.973 0.969 0.985 0.980
a realization. In practice, the de-excitation path starts 53
Cr-thick 0.985 0.995 0.994 1.007
at a specific resonance, and the branching of individual
resonances differs. The specific choice of this branching
for a fixed realization is called a subrealization.
FP HW T is estimated by obtaining the deviation of of bins of Rij
c
. The values of FP HW T for each sample and
the weighted response from Nc simulated cascades (of detector are summarized in Table III. Eq. (5) has also
the same subrealization) compared to the expected value been used to estimate the systematic uncertainty associ-
without considering any of the effects listed above, that ated to the WF accuracy, given by its deviation from the
is: unity when considering the full simulated response of the
PNc P c cascades, without any detection threshold. By doing so
i j Wj Rij for the 197 Au and chromium cascades, an average value
FP HW T = , (5)
Nc Ec of 1.7% has been considered as the uncertainty of the
where Rijc
is the discretized detector response to the cas- WF.
cade i of energy Ec weighted by Wj , and j is the number In the particular case of chromium, the determination
 8

of FP HW T is not as straightforward as for 197 Au, because

the capture cascades change significantly between reso- Cr(n,γ ) cascades
53
10−1
nances with the same spin and parity. This is because

Counts (arb. units)

the level density is relatively small, and the cascade pat-
tern is strongly determined by the primary transitions 10−2
from each resonance. Significant fluctuations can be ac-
tually seen in the experimental deposited energy Edep
spectra, due to primary transitions. This is shown in the 10−3
En = 4.14 keV, s-wave, J = 1
top panel of Fig. 5 that compares the measured spectra
En = 6.78 keV, s-wave, J = 1
from three strong s-wave resonances from the 53 Cr-thick
sample. Bottom panel of Fig. 5 then provides the sim- 10−4 En = 8.19 keV, s-wave, J = 2
Only p-waves
ulated spectra corresponding to different NuDEX sub-
NuDEX therm.
realizations (within one realization), showing expected
differences in spectra at least comparable to those from 10−5
0 2 4 6 8 10
experiment. Accordingly, the correction factor FP HW T Deposited energy (MeV)
can change for each resonance, as shown by Mendoza et
al. [49]. The conclusion from that study is that, keeping
the detection threshold as low as 150 keV, even in the Cr(n,γ ) cascades
53
10−1
case of chromium in which the capture cascades change
significantly, the effect in FP HW T is as small as 0.7% for

Counts (arb. units)

Cr and 0.9% for 53 Cr. Consequently, we considered 10−2
50

an additional and conservative 1% uncertainty affecting

FP HW T .
10−3 NuDEX therm.
NuDEX v.1
10−4 NuDEX v.2
D. Normalization through the Saturated
Resonance Method NuDEX v.3
−5
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
The Beam Interception Factor (BIF) is defined as Deposited energy (MeV)
the fraction of neutrons in the beam seen by the sam-
ple, which is introduced in the calculation of the cap-
ture yield as a normalization factor FBIF . This factor FIG. 5. Top: Deposited energy (Edep ) spectra of the three
is obtained through the so-called Saturated Resonance main s-waves resonances and a sum of the cascades of multi-
ple p-wave resonances of 53 Cr, along with a simulated ther-
Method (SRM) [27] using the 4.9 eV resonance of 197 Au
mal neutron capture cascade generated with NuDEX. Bot-
measured with a thick target and thus featuring a sat- tom: Simulated Edep spectra of the same thermal neutron
uration of the yield, demonstrated as a flat resonance cascade and 3 additional NuDEX subrealizations, equivalent
top, as all neutrons impinging the sample are captured to different resonances.
(see Fig. 6). The capture yield of the 20 mm 197 Au
sample has been obtained for each detector and analysed
with SAMMY [42] leaving the normalization factor free E. Capture yield: PWHT implementation for
to vary. The resulting normalization factors provide the 50,53
Cr
values of FBIF , which agree within 1.4% for individual
detectors, yielding average values of FBIF = 0.645(9). The implementation of the PHWT enhances the sta-
The same procedure was performed to the capture yield tistical fluctuations of the data because the weights are
of the 80 mm diameter gold sample, which is larger than assigned in a signal-by-signal basis, something that has
the beam diameter, obtaining 1.003(3), in a perfect agree- been studied in detail recently by Mendoza et al. [49].
ment with the expected value of 1. Having limited statistics when applying the PHWT is
The FBIF value for the chromium samples is then con- equivalent to sampling poorly the detector response.
sidered as that of the 20 mm gold sample because they This becomes critical when the statistics are very lim-
feature the same diameter. However, this requires the ited, causing the overall weighting to vary significantly
chromium and gold samples to be perfectly aligned with between neighbouring bins. As a consequence, fluctua-
respect to each other, something that is achieved within tions on individual points are enhance, inducing deforma-
0.5 mm using an alignment laser system. Adopting the tions in the shape of the resonances after the weighting
description of the beam profile from Guerrero et al. [24], process. In our case, this issue is severely affecting the
the associated uncertainty in FBIF is conservatively es- yield above ∼20 keV due to the limited statistics in com-
timated as 2%. bination with a significant contribution of high-energy
 9

8
Au (∅ = 20 mm)
197
1 BIF = 1.003(3)

Statistical uncertainty (%)

197
Au (∅ = 80 mm) 7
SAMMY fit
0.8
Capture yield

6
BIF = 0.645(9)
0.6 5

0.4 4
50
Cr
0.2 3
53
Cr
2
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Neutron energy (eV) Neutron energy (keV)

FIG. 6. Capture yield corresponding to the 20 mm and 80 mm FIG. 7. Statistical uncertainties extracted from the resonance
diameter 197 Au samples fitted with SAMMY to get the Beam area of 50 Cr and 53 Cr, corresponding to the uncertainty of
Interception Factor (FBIF ). each W Fres . These were considered in the overall uncertainty
of the final capture yield.

γ-rays to chromium spectra.

As shown with detail in Ref [50], we can suppress the TABLE IV. Contributions to the systematic uncertainty of
fluctuations in weighted counts Cw by defining energy the capture yields. As described in Sec. III E, the RWF cor-
rection applies only to neutron energies above 10 keV.
regions where the detection efficiency is constant. We
have developed a new method in which, instead of ap- Syst. unc. (%)
Contribution
plying directly the PHWT calculated in narrow neutron
50
Cr 53
Cr
energy bins, we determine a weighting factor W Fres in- Sample thickness 0.4 0.2
dependently for each resonance: i.e. a resonance weight- Beam monitoring 2.5 2.5
Neutron flux shape 2 2
ing factor (RWF) is applied. The W Fres factors are
Saturated Resonance Method 1.5 1.5
obtained by computing the ratio between the area of Sample alignment 2 2
each resonance in the unweighted and weighted yields. PHWT:
This method is a generalization of the Average Weight- PHWT implementation 1.7 1.7
ing Factor (AWF) technique introduced in Ref. [51]. Our Cr cascades ⊛ fthr 1 1
method is useful for nuclei where the detection efficiency RWF 2.3 - 8 2.1 - 8
changes significantly between individual resonances, as Overall (1 - 10 keV) 5 5
in the case of chromium, so it works very well for iso- Overall (10 - 100 keV) 5-9 5-9
lated resonances. Obviously, the RWF can only be cal-
culated for resonances with enough statistics so W Fres
can be accurately extracted, and otherwise the AWF had Parameters of 42 resonances have been analyzed
to be used instead, as it is done in the valleys between using the new RWF technique, and the remaining
resonances. We have included an additional systematic ones (with poor statistics) along with the data be-
uncertainty in the capture yield, corresponding to the tween resonances have been analyzed by the AWF
statistics of each resonance as it affects the W Fres . This technique. The capture yield in this region has an
is shown in Fig. 7. Since the statistics of the main s- additional systematic uncertainty because of this
wave resonances located between 1 and 10 keV are much procedure (see Table IV).
higher, they are not significantly affected by the fluctu-
ations, so the yield in that region has been obtained ap-
plying the "standard" PHWT, and thus is not affected F. Systematic uncertainty
by this additional uncertainty.
To summarize: The different sources of systematic uncertainties have
• The capture yield between 1 and 10 keV, which is been described throughout the text, and are summarized
the most critical region, has been extracted apply- in Table IV. The estimation of uncertainties is conser-
ing the standard PHWT to the thin samples mea- vative but still yields an overall accuracy between 5%
surements. and 9% in the energy range of interest, between 1 and
100 keV. This is indeed within the 8-10% requested in
• For the range between 10 and 100 keV, the capture the NEA High Priority Request List (HPRL) motivating
yield has been extracted from the thick samples. this experiment.
 10

IV. RESONANCE ANALYSIS very clearly the large difference between evaluations. In
this particular region, our result for 50 Cr is in very good
The resonances in the capture yield were analyzed with agreement with JEFF-3.3 but significantly deviates from
the multilevel multichannel R-matrix code SAMMY [42]. the other evaluations. Note that although the shape of
The code allows for a Bayesian fitting of the capture the resonance is very different from CENDL-3.2, the reso-
yield in the Resolved Resonance Region (RRR) using the nance parameters are such that the resonance kernel (see
Reich-Moore R-matrix approximation [52], including sev- Sec. IV D) is in very good agreement with this evalua-
eral experimental effects like the Doppler and RF broad- tion. Regarding 53 Cr, the best agreement, but surely not
ening, the multi-isotopic composition of the samples and perfect, is reached with CENDL-3.2. Notably, for both
the self-shielding and multiple-scattering effects. With isotopes the INDEN evaluation clearly overestimates the
SAMMY it is also possible to include the residual back- cross sections. The structures at 1.6 keV and 2.6 keV
ground present in the yield (see Sec. III B) by fitting the correspond to the first resonances of 52 Cr and 63 Cu im-
valleys between resonances. purities.
To illustrate the problems related to the use of thick
samples in previous measurements (significantly thicker
A. Resonance analysis with SAMMY than our thick targets), the resonance parameters from
the analysis of the thin samples has been used in SAMMY
One of the main goals of this measurement was to min- to predict the yield corresponding to our thick samples.
imize the multiple-scattering effects in the capture yield. As shown at the middle panels of Fig. 8, the predictions
For this purpose, two samples with different thickness do not reproduce our spectra with the parameters de-
were used for each isotope. The region with the wide duced from our thin sample, specially for the 53 Cr case.
s-wave resonances between 1 and 10 keV was analyzed The total capture yield can be expressed P at the sum of
using the very thin samples, where multiple-scattering individual components Yi as Y (En ) = i Yi (En ), where
effects are much less relevant. The rest up to 100 keV the index i indicates the number of scatterings before
was analyzed with the thick samples. the capture. To better visualize the importance of the
For each resonance both neutron Γn and capture Γγ multiple-scattering effects, we display in the bottom pan-
widths can be fitted; but, if both are fitted simulta- els of Fig. 8 the fraction of the total capture yield that
neously, correlations appear and their uncertainty in- corresponds to Y0 , i.e., the fraction of captures without
creases. To prevent this, whenever it was possible only any previous scattering. It is clear that the multiple-
one of the widths was fitted, usually Γγ since for most scattering components are an important contribution to
resonances Γγ ≪ Γn and thus the radiative kernel is dom- the capture yield in our thick samples, contributing in
inated by it (see Eq. (6)). The resonance energy En was some regions by more than 50% to the yield. For illus-
fitted in all cases. tration, the figure also shows Y0 (based on our parame-
The resonance parameters from JEFF-3.3 [12] and ters from the thin samples) that would correspond to the
CENDL-3.2 [16] evaluations were used as a initial guess samples used in the previous experiments [5–9]. These
for the Bayesian fit, choosing the ones resulting in the samples were 8 to 30 and 7 to 12 times thicker than our
best result. The spin was kept as in the evaluations, un- thin 50 Cr and 53 Cr samples, respectively.
less the fit was not satisfactory or the evaluations do not
agree, in which case was changed (not fitted) to provide
a better result. C. Results and discussion between 10 and 100 keV
A total of 33 resonances have been observed and an-
alyzed for 50 Cr and 51 for 53 Cr. The complete list of From 10 keV onwards, we used the yield of the thick
resonance parameters (with their correlation when appli- samples to perform the resonance analysis, because of the
cable) and radiative kernels (see Sec. IV C) are listed in much better statistics.
Tables VI and VII of the Appendix. The results for 50 Cr (see the left panels of Fig. 9) ev-
idence clear discrepancies between our data, well repro-
duced by the SAMMY fits, and the evaluations, of which
B. Results and discussion between 1 and 10 keV JEFF-3.3 and INDEN share the same resonance parame-
ters. Furthermore, we report 3 resonances of 50 Cr, clearly
The range between 1 and 10 keV is the most important visible in our data (see for example the one indicated with
for criticality benchmarks because of a cluster of strong s- an arrow at 64 keV) but not present in JEFF-3.3. These
wave resonances in both 50 Cr and 53 Cr. These resonances were reported in JEFF-3.1 [53], but got removed from
are also the main source of multiple-scattering effects, the newer versions of the library like JEFF-3.2 [12] and
which severely affected previous measurements. The JEFF-3.3.
measured capture yield with the corresponding SAMMY In the case of 53 Cr (see right panels of Fig. 9), there
fit are displayed and compared with the expected yields are again clear differences between our data and the eval-
from the JEFF-3.3, CENDL-3.2 and INDEN [10] evalu- uations. The comparison indicates a clear overestimation
ations in the top panels of Fig. 8. The figure illustrates of the cross section by the INDEN evaluation. Further-
 11
×10 ×10
1.2 This work 50 This work 53
Cr-thin Cr-thin
SAMMY fit
-3 SAMMY fit 1.5

-3
Capture yield ×10 1 JEFF-3.3

Capture yield ×10

JEFF-3.3
CENDL-3.2 CENDL-3.2
0.8 INDEN
INDEN
1
0.6

0.4
0.5
0.2
×10 ×10
31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 50
9 61 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 53
9
This work Cr-thick This work Cr-thick
Capture yield ×10-3

Capture yield ×10-3

50 53
2.5 Cr-thin RP 5 Cr-thin RP

2 4

1.5 3

1 2

0.5 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1
0.8 0.8

Y0 /Y
Y0 /Y

50
0.6 Cr-thin 0.6
50
Cr-thick 53
0.4 Cr-thin
0.4 Stieglitz 53
Cr-thick
Beer Stieglitz/Beer/Guber
0.2 Kenny 0.2 Kenny
Brusegan Brusegan
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Neutron energy (keV) Neutron energy (keV)

FIG. 8. Top: Capture yield of 50 Cr (left) and 53 Cr (right) thin samples measured at n_TOF and fitted with SAMMY, compared
with the predictions using the parameters from evaluations. Middle: Capture yield of the thick samples compared to the
prediction of SAMMY using the parameters from the thin sample fitting. Bottom: Fraction of the capture yield corresponding
to the captures without scattering, for the samples used at n_TOF samples and in the previous measurements [5–9].

more, there are 9 resonances of 53 Cr (two of them marked value of the ratio, using the uncertainty of the widths
with arrows at 41.8 and 86.2 keV) included in JEFF-3.3 fitted by SAMMY as the weighting factor (only the reso-
and INDEN that cannot be observed in our data. As nances for which at least one width have been fitted are
these resonances are very weak, we can neither confirm considered in the calculations).
nor deny their existence due to low statistics. We have The values for 50 Cr show an overestimation of the pre-
not included them in our list of resonance parameters. vious evaluations with respect to this work, of about 7%
for JEFF-3.3 and CENDL-3.2 and almost 40% for IN-
DEN. The deviation is dominated by the main s-wave
D. Radiative kernels
resonance at 5.64 keV (Γn /Γγ ≈ 500), which is in per-
fect agreement with the first two libraries but 40% lower
A quantitative comparison of the measured and evalu- than INDEN (as mention above, from 10 keV onwards
ated cross sections in the RRR can be made by using the JEFF-3.3 and INDEN share the same resonance param-
radiative kernel Kγ , which is proportional to the integral eters). We must point out that the p-wave resonances at
of the resonance and is defined as 5.46 and 9.31 keV have been omitted from this analysis
Γγ Γn because their kernel varies so much between evaluations
Kγ = gJ , (6) that the ratios deviate about a factor 4 from the average,
Γγ + Γn
probably because their parameters are greatly influenced
where gJ is the spin factor gJ = (2i+1)(2I+1)
2J+1
, with i = 1/2 by the main s-wave resonance. There is not any clear
and I the spin of the neutron and the target nucleus re- trend as a function of the scattering-to-capture ratio.
spectively, and J the total angular momentum of the For the 53 Cr case, where the evaluations feature im-
resonance. We have compared the ratio between the Kγ portant differences, our kernels are on average 35% larger
from this work and the evaluations as a function of the than JEFF-3.3, 10% lower than CENDL-3.2 and around
scattering-to-capture probability Γn /Γγ . This way, we 60% lower than INDEN. It is important to notice that
can identify issues related to neutron scattering. The re- our data deviates much more from the evaluations based
sult is shown in Fig. 10 along with the weighted mean on the data from Guber et al. [9] (JEFF-3.3 and IN-
 12
×10 ×10
50 53
Cr (this work) Cr (this work)
1.5 SAMMY fit SAMMY fit
JEFF-3.3 JEFF-3.3
Capture yield ×10-3 6

Capture yield ×10-3

CENDL-3.2 CENDL-3.2
INDEN

1
4

0.5
2

0 0
24 24.2 24.4 24.6 24.8 25 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8
Neutron energy (keV) Neutron energy (keV)
×10 ×10
2.5 50
Cr (this work) 1.5 53
Cr (this work)
SAMMY fit SAMMY fit
JEFF-3.3 JEFF-3.3
2
Capture yield ×10-3

Capture yield ×10-3

CENDL-3.2 CENDL-3.2
INDEN
1
1.5

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
35.2 35.4 35.6 35.8 41.5 42 42.5 43 43.5
Neutron energy (keV) Neutron energy (keV)
×10 ×10
50
Cr (this work) 1 53
Cr (this work)
SAMMY fit SAMMY fit
0.4 JEFF-3.3 JEFF-3.3
0.8
Capture yield ×10-3

Capture yield ×10-3

CENDL-3.2 CENDL-3.2
INDEN
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4

0.1
0.2

0
0
62 63 64 65 66 62 63 64 65 66 67
Neutron energy (keV) Neutron energy (keV)
×10 ×10
50
Cr (this work) 0.8 53
Cr (this work)
SAMMY fit SAMMY fit
0.3 JEFF-3.3 JEFF-3.3
Capture yield ×10-3

Capture yield ×10-3

CENDL-3.2 0.6 CENDL-3.2

INDEN

0.2
0.4

0.1
0.2

0 0
86 88 90 92 94 96 98 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100
Neutron energy (keV) Neutron energy (keV)

FIG. 9. 50 Cr (left) and 53 Cr (right) capture yield fitted with SAMMY, along with the one predicted using JEFF-3.3, CENDL-
3.2 and INDEN resonance parameters for comparison. The arrows indicate some resonance not present in the evaluations but
visible in the n_TOF data in the case of 50 Cr, or the opposite situation in the case of 53 Cr. See text for more details.
 13

2 this MACS. We have calculated the MACS30 from our

This work/JEFF-3.3 new cross section and the evaluations as
This work/CENDL-3.2 R∞
1.5 2 0 En e−En /kT σ(En )dEn
This work/INDEN MACSkT = √ R∞
−En /kT dE
, (7)
π 0 En e n
Cr Kγ ratio

where En is the neutron energy in the center-of-mass

1
system and σ(En ) is the point-wise capture cross section.
Since the measurement described herein only covers the
50

region below En = 100 keV, we have used JEFF-3.3 and

0.5 CENDL-3.2 to extrapolate the measured cross section up
to 300 keV and evaluate the difference in the MACS when
using one or another evaluation for the extrapolation.
0 The results for 50 Cr are 34.3 and 35.6 mb when extrap-
10−1 1 10 102 103 olating with JEFF-3.3 or CENDL-3.2, respectively. The
Γ n /Γ γ same for 53 Cr yields MACS values of 30.9 and 30.8 mb.
In both cases the values are in agreement within a few
This work/JEFF-3.3 percent and thus the average is adopted:
2.5 This work/CENDL-3.2
This work/INDEN
MACS30 (50 Cr) = 35.0(24) mb, (8)
2 MACS30 ( Cr) = 30.9(22) mb.
53
(9)
Cr Kγ ratio

1.5 The uncertainty is difficult to estimate, because it is not

only related to that of the capture yield but also to the
fitting process with SAMMY. Since the uncertainty of
53

1
the yield varies between 5% and 9%, a value of 7% has
been adopted as the uncertainty of the MACS.
0.5 Our results are compared in Table V and Fig. 11 to
the MACS calculated from the cross sections libraries and
0 from the only experimental value of the MACS of 50 Cr
10−2 10−1 1 10 102 103 104 105 by Pérez-Maroto et al. [21].
Γ n /Γ γ
• Regarding 50 Cr, our M ACS is in clear disagree-
FIG. 10. Ratio of radiative kernels obtained in this work ment (30% lower) with the recent INDEN evalua-
and reported in the different evaluations as function of the tion, and 8-9% lower, slightly beyond one standard
scattering-to-capture ratio. The solid lines represent the stan- deviation, than JEFF-3.3 and CENDL-3.2. Our
dard deviation of the weighted mean value. See text for more value is then in a remarkable agreement within un-
details. certainties with the M ACS value of Pérez-Maroto
et al. obtained recently by activation at the CNA
HiSPANoS facility.
DEN) than from CENDL-3.2, based on the older mea-
surements. In addition, there is an apparent decrease • Regarding 53 Cr, our data is only in agreement with
of the kernel ratio as a function of Γn /Γγ for the IN- the CENDL-3.2 evaluation. A significant disagree-
DEN case. This could indicate an overestimation of the ment is found with both JEFF-3.3 (20% lower than
neutron-scattering effects by this evaluation, but the lack our result) and INDEN (70% larger) evaluations.
of statistics in some of the resonances makes it difficult to
completely confirm this issue, so a revision by the evalu- These results confirm the trends that were observed
ators is recommended. when studying the radiative kernels, suggesting clearly
that the recent increase in the neutron capture cross sec-
tion proposed by INDEN is inappropriate for both 50 Cr
E. Integral cross sections (MACS) and 53 Cr.

As discussed in Ref. [21], an integral cross section

measurement is very useful to assess evaluations which V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
present large discrepancies. In our case, the Maxwellian
Averaged Cross Section at 30 keV (MACS30 ), commonly A neutron capture time-of-flight measurement of 50 Cr
used in stellar nucleosynthesis calculations, is especially and 53 Cr has been successfully performed at the n_TOF-
valuable because the chromium resonances contributing EAR1 facility of CERN. The capture set-up consisted
to benchmark experiments also strongly contribute to on four C6 D6 Total Energy detectors characterized by
 14

CENDL-3.2 JEFF-3.3 INDEN with an accuracy between 5 and 9%, fulfilling the re-
quirements of the NEA HPRL request. A total of 33
This work (n_TOF)
resonances of 50 Cr and 51 resonances of 53 Cr have been
identified and analysed with SAMMY, resulting in a new
set of resonance parameters. Overall, the comparison of
radiative kernels indicates a 50 Cr capture cross section
∼7% lower than JEFF-3.3 (and thus ENDF/B-VIII.0,
Perez-Maroto (2025)
JENDL-5) and CENDL-3.2, and almost 40% lower than
INDEN (and thus ENDF/B-VIII.1). Very similar differ-
32 34 36
50
38 40 42 44 46 48 ence is also reached when the comparison is made for the
Cr MACS30 (mb)
MACS30 integral cross section. On the other hand, the
JEFF-3.3 CENDL-3.2 INDEN MACS extracted from the 50 Cr n_TOF differential cross
section measurement is in an excellent agreement with
that obtained recently by neutron activation at CNA
HiSPANoS [21].
The discrepancies with the evaluations are much larger
This work (n_TOF)
in the case of 53 Cr. According to the radiative kernels,
our cross section is on average 35% larger than JEFF-
3.3 (and thus ENDF/B-VIII.0, JENDL-5), 10% lower
than CENDL-3.2 and a remarkable 60% lower than IN-
20 25 30 35
53
40 45 50 55 60 65 DEN (and thus ENDF/B-VIII.1). When comparing the
Cr MACS30 (mb)
MACS30 values, a very good agreement if found with
CENDL-3.2, while our result is 70% larger than the one
FIG. 11. MACS30 comparison between the values obtained expected from INDEN. Accordingly, the sizeable increase
in this work for 50,53 Cr, the 50 Cr activation measurement and in the chromium cross sections proposed in the recent IN-
the values derived from evaluations. DEN evaluation is not supported by the new experimen-
tal data, which calls for a re-evaluation of cross section
including the data presented herein.
TABLE V. MACS30 values of 50 Cr and 53 Cr obtained in this
work, compared to the values extracted from the evaluations
and the only 50 Cr activation measurement available.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MACS30 (mb) 50
Cr 53
Cr
Evaluations:
JEFF-3.3 (2017) 38.2 25.9 This measurement has received funding from the Eu-
CENDL-3.2 (2020) 37.7 31.5 roatom research and training programme 2014-2018 un-
INDEN (2023) 45.0 51.7 der grant agreement No 847594 (ARIEL), and from
Activation @HiSPANoS: the Spanish national projects RTI2018-098117-B-C21,
Pérez-Maroto et al. (2025) 37.1(20) - PID2019-104714GB-C22, PID2021-123879OB-C21 and
ToF @n_TOF:
PID2022-138297NB-C21.
This work 35.0(24) 30.9(22)
This work is also part of the PhD thesis of P. Pérez-
Maroto at Universidad de Sevilla, Spain [50], funded
through the FPI national Grant No PRE2019-089678.
their very low neutron sensitivity. Two highly enriched We also acknowledge the National Science Centre,
chromium oxide samples were used for each isotope: a Poland (Grant No. UMO-2021/41/B/ST2/00326). Sup-
very thin one was used to analyze the yield between 1 port of funding agencies of all other institutes from the
and 10 keV, and a thicker one for the rest of the neutron n_TOF Collaboration is gratefully acknowledged.
energy range up to 100 keV. All samples were thinner
than any of those used in previous measurements, thus
strongly suppressing the multiple-scattering effects that
affected the previous measurements, thus causing the dis- APPENDIX (RESONANCE PARAMETERS AND
KERNELS)
crepancies present in the evaluated cross section libraries.
The capture yield has been measured from 1 to 100 keV

[1] European Commission, Complementary climate change [2] J. D. Bess and T. Ivanova, Current overview of ICSBEP
mitigation and adaptation taxonomy, Delegated Regula- and IRPhEP benchmark evaluation practices, in EPJ web
tion - C(2022)631. of conferences, Vol. 239 (EDP Sciences, 2020) p. 18002.
 15

TABLE VI. Resonance parameters of 50 Cr obtained in this TABLE VII. Resonance parameters of 53 Cr obtained in this
work. The uncertainty of the resonance energy has been con- work. The uncertainty of the resonance energy has been con-
sidered as 0.1% based on time-to-energy calibration. The un- sidered as 0.1% based on time-to-energy calibration. The un-
certainty of the resonance widths is the one obtained in the certainty of the resonance widths is the one obtained in the
SAMMY fitting. If a value has no uncertainty it means that SAMMY fitting. If a value has no uncertainty it means that
it has not been fitted but adopted from an evaluated library it has not been fitted but adopted from an evaluated library
(see Section IV C). (see Section IV C).
E (keV) J ℓ Γγ (eV) Γn (eV) Corr. (%) Kγ (eV) E (keV) J ℓ Γγ (eV) Γn (eV) Corr. (%) Kγ (eV)
5.464(5) 1.5 1 0.9(3) 0.0315(6) -20 0.61(3) 4.033(4) 1 0 3.089(12) 1332(8) 7 1.1558(17)
5.581(6) 0.5 0 3.226(15) 1636(11) 21 3.220(16) 5.677(7) 2 0 0.541(7) 143(3) 29 0.337(3)
9.306(9) 0.5 1 1.2(7) 0.0539(18) -28 0.0516(18) 6.857(7) 1 0 3.31(3) 906(13) 53 1.236(5)
18.63(2) 1.5 1 0.318(5) 5.400 - 0.601(16) 8.210(8) 2 0 1.680(20) 1091(18) 35 1.049(8)
19.23(2) 0.5 1 0.394(8) 2.740 - 0.344(5) 12.11(1) 2 1 0.430(6) 4.500 - 0.2452(17)
21.85(2)∗ 0.5 1 0.370 0.039(7) - 0.035(5) 12.96(1) 2 1 0.212(7) 0.59(6) -64 0.097(11)
24.08(2)+@ 1.5 1 0.170 0.049 - 0.076 14.66(1)• 1 1 0.343(7) 3.200 - 0.1161(7)
24.88(2)• 1.5 1 0.203(9) 0.360 - 0.260(10) 16.04(2)∗ 1 1 0.029(3) 0.393 - 0.0100(3)
28.48(3) 0.5 1 0.598(20) 392 - 1.85(8) 19.71(2) 2 0 0.708(11) 104 - 0.439(4)
33.49(3) 1.5 1 0.454(13) 9.300 - 0.87(5) 20.23(2) 3 1 0.406(6) 6.600 - 0.335(4)
35.48(3) 1.5 1 0.53(3) 1.250 - 0.74(4) 22.49(2) 2 1 0.208(19) 0.840 - 0.104(4)
35.65(4) 0.5 1 0.48(3) 5.000 - 0.436(25) 24.34(2)∗ 0 1 0.58(5) 0.66(6) -44 0.0388(8)
37.57(4) 0.5 0 1.85(8) 2300 - 0.75(4) 25.90(3) 2 0 0.40(3) 195 - 0.250(5)
40.65(4) 1.5 1 0.348(16) 39(7) - 0.69(6) 27.28(3) 1 0 1.11(3) 680 - 0.416(4)
46.74(5) 1.5 1 0.53(3) 0.900 - 0.67(3) 28.79(3)∗ 1 1 5.7(6) 0.478(15) -13 0.1656(19)
50.07(5) 1.5 1 0.271(14) 1.570 - 0.462(8) 28.89(3) 0 1 1.85(10) 4.0(4) -64 0.158(4)
53.62(5)• 1.5 1 0.59(6) 1.180 - 0.79(7) 29.49(3) 2 0 0.894(19) 350 - 0.557(7)
55.13(5) 0.5 0 0.76(4) 281 - 0.75(4) 31.60(3) 3 1 0.268(8) 8.748 - 0.227(5)
59.21(6) 1.5 1 0.578(19) 11.200 - 0.110(6) 32.17(3) 3 1 0.241(8) 2.700 - 0.194(5)
63.29(6) 1.5 1 0.270(19) 10.000 - 0.53(7) 35.04(3) 3 1 0.221(12) 3.210 - 0.181(8)
64.08(6)∗† 0.5 1 0.370 0.250 - 0.149 37.84(4) 3 1 0.245(11) 12.000 - 0.210(8)
64.85(6) 0.5 0 0.60(4) 43.000 - 0.59(4) 42.47(4) 1 1 0.521(25) 6.210 - 0.180(3)
65.87(7) 1.5 1 0.490(23) 33.100 - 0.96(9) 43.30(4) 3 1 0.34(3) 1.500 - 0.242(14)
68.24(7) 0.5 1 0.44(13) 1.800 - 0.35(7) 47.22(5) 1 1 0.86(4) 34.900 - 0.313(5)
70.28(7) 0.5 1 0.88(9) 1.230 - 0.513(18) 47.79(5)∗+ 3 1 2.427 0.025 - 0.021
73.35(7) 1.5 1 0.442(23) 9.500 - 0.84(8) 49.97(5) 3 1 0.257(11) 7.200 - 0.217(8)
75.38(7)∗ 0.5 1 0.46(5) 4.200 - 0.41(4) 51.07(5) 1 1 0.46(3) 45.100 - 0.169(4)
77.86(8) 0.5 1 0.52(14) 14.200 - 0.50(12) 53.63(5) 1 1 0.93(4) 20.000 - 0.334(5)
79.08(8) 0.5 1 0.68(4) 100 - 0.67(4) 55.27(5)+ 0 1 0.520 31.127 - 0.064
88.69(9) 1.5 1 0.43(4) 5.340 - 0.79(13) 55.87(6)+ 0 1 0.520 48.510 - 0.064
90.33(9) 1.5 1 0.64(11) 2.170 - 0.98(20) 62.39(6)@ 2 1 0.300 0.300 - 0.097
94.95(9)@ 0.5 0 0.967 2200 - 0.967 62.63(6) 1 1 1.43(7) 4.817 - 0.414(5)
98.71(10) 0.5 1 1.82(21) 2.300 - 1.02(4) 64.83(6) 2 1 0.53(3) 4.657 - 0.294(8)
+) Γγ and Γn from JEFF-3.3 65.51(7) 2 0 0.48(4) 4017 - 0.300(17)
@) Γγ and Γn from CENDL-3.2 66.50(7) 3 1 0.308(17) 13.698 - 0.263(12)
†) Γγ and Γn from JEFF-3.1 67.15(7) 2 1 0.44(3) 15.029 - 0.269(9)
•) Energy discrepancy 69.51(7) 1 1 0.92(6) 50.100 - 0.340(14)
∗) Removed from JEFF-3.2 69.81(7) 2 1 1.86(11) 3.112 - 0.728(6)
73.01(7) 1 1 0.59(4) 76.000 - 0.219(6)
73.60(7) 1 0 1.04(9) 1200 - 0.391(12)
74.43(7) 3 1 0.89(6) 1.76(18) -49 0.52(7)
[3] A. Trkov, On the Benchmarking of New Evaluated Nu- 74.53(7) 2 0 0.48(5) 1000 - 0.301(18)
clear Data Libraries, INDC (NDS)-0751, IAEA, Vienna, 75.67(8)† 2 1 2.102 0.184 - 0.106
Austria (2018). 76.62(8)+ 1 1 0.494 0.287 - 0.681
[4] E. Dupont, M. Bossant, R. Capote, A. Carlson,
85.80(9) 1 1 0.193(16) 3.272 - 0.455(6)
Y. Danon, M. Fleming, Z. Ge, H. Harada, O. Iwamoto,
86.99(9) 1 0 2.48(24) 6500 - 0.93(3)
N. Iwamoto, et al., HPRL – International cooperation to 89.50(9) 2 1 0.65(6) 0.42(4) -5 0.160(4)
identify and monitor priority nuclear data needs for nu- 93.64(9) 2 0 0.82(5) 78.533 - 0.507(21)
clear applications, in EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 239 94.56(9) 2 0 0.40(4) 501 - 0.248(14)
(EDP Sciences, 2020) p. 15005.
95.98(10)+@ 0 1 0.890 33446 - 0.111
[5] R. Stieglitz, R. Hockenbury, and R. Block, keV neutron
98.40(10) 2 1 1.30(6) 19.570 - 0.759(21)
capture and transmission measurements on 50 Cr, 52 Cr,
53
Cr, 54 Cr, 60 Ni and V, Nuclear Physics A 163, 592 +) Γγ and Γn from JEFF-3.3
(1971). @) Γγ and Γn from CENDL-3.2
[6] H. Beer and R. R. Spencer, keV neutron radiative capture †) Γγ and Γn from INDEN
•) Energy discrepancy
∗) Not included in CENDL-3.2
 16

and total cross section of 50,52,53 Cr, 54,57 Fe, and 62,64 Ni, tivation as benchmark for cross section evaluations:
Nuclear Physics A 240, 29 (1975). demonstration through the MACS of 50 Cr for nuclear
[7] M. Kenny, B. Allen, A. Musgrove, R. Macklin, and technology applications, Physics Letters B , 139360
J. Halperin, Neutron capture by the chromium isotopes (2025).
(Australian Atomic Energy Commission, 1977). [22] P. Pérez-Maroto, C. Guerrero, A. Casanovas, B. Fer-
[8] A. Brusegan, R. Buyl, F. Corvi, L. Mewissen, F. Poort- nández, and the n_TOF Collaboration, Description and
mans, G. Rohr, R. Shelley, T. Van der Veen, and I. v. outlook of the 50,53 Cr(n,γ) cross section measurement at
Marcke, High resolution neutron capture and total cross n_TOF and HiSPANoS, in EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol.
section measurements of 50 Cr, 52 Cr and 53 Cr, Radiation 294 (EDP Sciences, 2024) p. 01004.
Effects 93, 297 (1986). [23] R. Esposito, M. Calviani, O. Aberle, M. Barbagallo,
[9] K. H. Guber, P. Koehler, D. Wiarda, and J. Harvey, Neu- D. Cano-Ott, T. Coiffet, N. Colonna, C. Domingo-Pardo,
tron cross-section measurements on structural materials F. Dragoni, R. F. Ximenes, et al., Design of the third-
at ORELA, J. Korean Phys. Soc 59, 1685 (2011). generation lead-based neutron spallation target for the
[10] G. Nobre, M. T. Pigni, D. A. Brown, R. Capote, neutron time-of-flight facility at CERN, Physical Review
A. Trkov, K. H. Guber, R. Arcilla, J. Gutierrez, Accelerators and Beams 24, 093001 (2021).
A. Cuadra, G. Arbanas, et al., Newly Evaluated Neu- [24] C. Guerrero, A. Tsinganis, E. Berthoumieux, M. Barba-
tron Reaction Data on Chromium Isotopes, Nuclear Data gallo, F. Belloni, F. Gunsing, C. Weiß, E. Chiaveri,
Sheets 173, 1 (2021). M. Calviani, V. Vlachoudis, and the n_TOF Collabo-
[11] L. Leal, H. Derrien, K. Guber, G. Arbanas, and ration, Performance of the neutron time-of-flight facility
D. Wiarda, Evaluation of the chromium resonance pa- n_TOF at CERN, The European Physical Journal A 49,
rameters including resonance parameter covariance, J. 1 (2013).
Korean Phys. Soc 59, 1644 (2011). [25] C. Weiß, E. Chiaveri, S. Girod, V. Vlachoudis, and
[12] A. J. Plompen, O. Cabellos, C. De Saint Jean, M. Flem- the n_TOF Collaboration, The new vertical neutron
ing, et al., The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear beam line at the CERN n_TOF facility design and out-
data library, JEFF-3.3, The European Physical Journal look on the performance, Nuclear Instruments and Meth-
A 56, 1 (2020). ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec-
[13] D. Brown, M. Chadwick, R. Capote, A. Kahler, A. Trkov, trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 799, 90
M. Herman, A. Sonzogni, Y. Danon, A. Carlson, (2015).
M. Dunn, D. Smith, G. Hale, et al., ENDF/B-VIII.0: [26] M. Ferrari, D. Senajova, O. Aberle, Y. Aguiar, D. Bail-
The 8th major release of the nuclear reaction data li- lard, M. Barbagallo, A.-P. Bernardes, L. Buonocore,
brary with CIELO-project cross sections, new standards M. Cecchetto, V. Clerc, et al., Design development and
and thermal scattering data, Nuclear Data Sheets 148, implementation of an irradiation station at the neutron
1 (2018). time-of-flight facility at CERN, Physical Review Accel-
[14] O. Iwamoto, N. Iwamoto, S. Kunieda, F. Minato, erators and Beams 25, 103001 (2022).
S. Nakayama, Y. Abe, K. Tsubakihara, S. Okumura, [27] R. L. Macklin, J. Halperin, and R. R. Winters, Absolute
C. Ishizuka, T. Yoshida, et al., Japanese evaluated nu- neutron capture yield calibration, Nuclear Instruments
clear data library version 5: JENDL-5, Journal of Nu- and Methods 164, 213 (1979).
clear Science and Technology 60, 1 (2023). [28] P. Mastinu, G. Prete, C. Guerrero, C. Massimi, D. Cano-
[15] A. Blokhin, E. Gai, A. Ignatyuk, I. Koba, V. Manokhin, Ott, P. M. Milazzo, J. Praena, A. R. García, F. Min-
and V. Pronyaev, New version of neutron evaluated data grone, F. Gramegna, et al., New C6 D6 detectors: reduced
library BROND-3.1, Yad. Reak. Konst 2, 62 (2016). neutron sensitivity and improved safety, Tech. Rep. (The
[16] Z. Ge, R. Xu, H. Wu, Y. Zhang, G. Chen, Y. Jin, N. Shu, n_TOF Collaboration, 2013).
Y. Chen, X. Tao, Y. Tian, et al., CENDL-3.2: The new [29] R. Plag, M. Heil, F. Käppeler, P. Pavlopoulos, R. Rei-
version of Chinese general purpose evaluated nuclear data farth, K. Wisshak, and the n_TOF Collaboration,
library, in EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 239 (EDP Sci- An optimized C6 D6 detector for studies of resonance-
ences, 2020) p. 09001. dominated (n,γ) cross-sections, Nuclear Instruments and
[17] IAEA, INDEN – International Nuclear Data Evaluation Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators,
Network, online at https://www-nds.iaea.org/INDEN/. Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
[18] G. Nobre, D. Brown, R. Arcilla, R. Coles, and B. Shu, 496, 425 (2003).
Progress towards the ENDF/B-VIII.1 release, in EPJ [30] R. Macklin and J. Gibbons, Capture-cross-section studies
Web of Conferences, Vol. 294 (EDP Sciences, 2024) p. for 30-220-keV neutrons using a new technique, Physical
04004. Review 159, 1007 (1967).
[19] J. Gómez-Camacho, J. G. López, C. Guerrero, J. L. [31] S. Marrone, P. Mastinu, U. Abbondanno, R. Baccomi,
Gutiérrez, R. García-Tenorio, F. J. Santos-Arévalo, E. B. Marchi, N. Bustreo, N. Colonna, F. Gramegna,
E. Chamizo, F. Ferrer, M. d. C. Jiménez-Ramos, M. Bal- M. Loriggiola, S. Marigo, et al., A low background neu-
cerzyk, et al., Research facilities and highlights at the tron flux monitor for the n_TOF facility at CERN, Nu-
Centro Nacional de Aceleradores (CNA), The European clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec-
Physical Journal Plus 136, 273 (2021). tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As-
[20] M. Macías, B. Fernández, and J. Praena, The first neu- sociated Equipment 517, 389 (2004).
tron time-of-flight line in Spain: Commissioning and new [32] U. Abbondanno et al., The data acquisition system of the
data for the definition of a neutron standard field, Radi- neutron time-of-flight facility n_TOF at CERN, Nuclear
ation Physics and Chemistry 168, 108538 (2020). Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:
[21] P. Pérez-Maroto, C. Guerrero, B. Fernández, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated
A. Casanovas-Hoste, and M. Stamati, Neutron ac- Equipment 538, 692 (2005).
 17

[33] A. Masi, A. Almeida, R. Cevenini, E. Chiaveri, [43] P. Žugec, N. Colonna, D. Bosnar, S. Altstadt, J. An-
M. Donzé, S. Gilardoni, A. Giraud, R. Losito, D. Macina, drzejewski, L. Audouin, M. Barbagallo, V. Bécares,
F. Marazita, et al., The CERN n_TOF facility data F. Bečvář, F. Belloni, et al., GEANT4 simulation of
acquisition system, JACoW Publishing ICALEPCS2017 the neutron background of the C6 D6 set-up for capture
Proceedings (2018). studies at n_TOF, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
[34] L. Mascetti, E. Cano, B. Chan, X. Espinal, A. Fiorot, Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers,
H. G. Labrador, J. Iven, M. Lamanna, G. L. Presti, Detectors and Associated Equipment 760, 57 (2014).
J. Mościcki, et al., Disk storage at CERN, in Journal [44] U. Abbondanno, G. Aerts, H. Alvarez, S. Andria-
of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 664 (IOP Publishing, monje, A. Angelopoulos, P. Assimakopoulos, C. Bacri,
2015) p. 042035. G. Badurek, P. Baumann, F. Bečvář, et al., New experi-
[35] P. Žugec, C. Weiß, C. Guerrero, F. Gunsing, mental validation of the pulse height weighting technique
V. Vlachoudis, M. Sabate-Gilarte, A. Stamatopoulos, for capture cross-section measurements, Nuclear Instru-
T. Wright, J. Lerendegui-Marco, F. Mingrone, et al., ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel-
Pulse processing routines for neutron time-of-flight data, erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip-
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research ment 521, 454 (2004).
Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and [45] J. L. Tain, F. Gunsing, D. Cano-Ott, N. Colonna,
Associated Equipment 812, 134 (2016). C. Domingo, E. Gonzalez, M. Heil, F. Käppeler,
[36] I. Antcheva, M. Ballintijn, B. Bellenot, M. Biskup, S. Makrone, P. Mastinu, et al., Accuracy of the pulse
R. Brun, N. Buncic, P. Canal, D. Casadei, O. Couet, height weighting technique for capture cross section mea-
V. Fine, et al., ROOT – A C++ framework for petabyte surements, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology
data storage, statistical analysis and visualization, Com- 39, 689 (2002).
puter Physics Communications 180, 2499 (2009). [46] J. Lerendegui-Marco, C. Guerrero, M. Cortés-Giraldo,
[37] J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. A. and J. Quesada, Geant4 Simulations for the Analysis of
Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, (n,γ) Measurements at n_TOF, in Basic Concepts in
R. Chytracek, et al., Geant4 developments and appli- Nuclear Physics: Theory, Experiments and Applications:
cations, IEEE Transactions on nuclear science 53, 270 2015 La Rábida International Scientific Meeting on Nu-
(2006). clear Physics (Springer, 2016) pp. 209–210.
[38] J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, [47] E. Mendoza, D. Cano-Ott, D. Jordan, J. Tain, and A. Al-
T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, gora, NuDEX: a new nuclear γ-ray cascades generator, in
et al., Recent developments in GEANT4, Nuclear instru- EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 239 (EDP Sciences, 2020)
ments and methods in physics research section A: Accel- p. 17006.
erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- [48] NNDC, The ENDSF Database.
ment 835, 186 (2016). [49] E. Mendoza, V. Alcayne, D. Cano-Ott, E. González-
[39] N. Akchurin and H. Kim, A study on ion initiated pho- Romero, T. Martínez, A. P. de Rada, A. Sánchez-
tomultiplier afterpulses, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- Caballero, J. Balibrea-Correa, C. Domingo-Pardo,
ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- J. Lerendegui-Marco, et al., Neutron capture measure-
trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 574, 121 ments with high efficiency detectors and the Pulse Height
(2007). Weighting Technique, Nuclear Instruments and Methods
[40] G. Lorusso, N. Colonna, S. Marrone, G. Tagliente, in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome-
M. Heil, D. Cano-Ott, M. Mosconi, C. Moreau, A. Men- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1047, 167894
goni, and the n_TOF Collaboration, Time-energy rela- (2023).
tion of the n_TOF neutron beam: energy standards re- [50] P. Pérez-Maroto, Measurement of 50 Cr and 53 Cr neu-
visited, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- tron capture cross sections for nuclear technology
search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors at CERN n_TOF and HiSPANoS (2024), online at
and Associated Equipment 532, 622 (2004). https://cds.cern.ch/record/2920339.
[41] S. Lo Meo, M. Cortés-Giraldo, C. Massimi, [51] J. Lerendegui-Marco, C. Guerrero, E. Mendoza, J. M.
J. Lerendegui-Marco, M. Barbagallo, N. Colonna, Quesada, K. Eberhardt, et al., Radiative neutron capture
C. Guerrero, D. Mancusi, F. Mingrone, J. Quesada, on 242 Pu in the resonance region at the CERN n_TOF-
and others (The n_TOF Collaboration), GEANT4 EAR1 facility, Physical Review C 97, 024605 (2018).
simulations of the n_TOF spallation source and their [52] C. Reich and M. Moore, Multilevel formula for the fission
benchmarking, The European Physical Journal A 51, 1 process, Physical Review 111, 929 (1958).
(2015). [53] A. Koning, R. Forrest, M. Kellett, R. Mills, H. Henriks-
[42] N. M. Larson, Updated user’s guide for SAMMY: Mul- son, Y. Rugama, O. Bersillon, O. Bouland, A. Courcelle,
tilevel R-matrix fits to neutron data using Bayes’ equa- M. Duijvestijn, et al., The JEFF-3.1 Nuclear Data Li-
tions, Tech. Rep. (Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak brary - JEFF Report 21, Tech. Rep. (Organisation for
Ridge, TN (United States), 2008). Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006).