set to 0 to simplify the $S$\- and $R$-matrix calculation algebra.

To calculate the $R$ matrix, we used the finite-basis approximation (Eq. 3.15
in DB):

$R_{l}(E,B)=\frac{1}{2\mu
a}\sum^{N}_{i,j=1}\phi_{i}(a)(\bm{C}^{-1})_{ij}\phi_{j}(a).$ (37)

Here $E$ is the center-of-mass energy, $\mu$ is the reduced mass, $a$ is the
channel radius, $N$ is the number of basis states $\phi$, and $\bm{C}$ is the
symmetric matrix containing solutions to the inhomogenous Bloch-Schrödinger
equation (Eq. 3.7 in DB),

$\bm{C}_{i,j}(E,B)=\bra{\phi_{i}}T_{l}+\mathcal{L}(B)+V-E\ket{\phi_{j}}$ (38)

To solve this equation, we employed the Lagrange-mesh method of Baye Baye
(2015) on an $N=30$ Legendre-polynomial mesh. The kinetic energy $T_{l}$ and
Bloch $\mathcal{L}(B)$ operators on this Lagrange-Legendre mesh (which we do
not reproduce here) are given by Eqs. 3.127 and 3.129 of Baye (2015). In our
case, $V$ is the optical potential, with $E$ the center-of-mass energy. Note,
however, that the energy argument of the optical potential, e.g., $E$ in
$U(r,E)$ of Eq. 28, is the projectile energy in the lab frame, per the
definition of CH89 and KD.

The above formulation is appropriate for the non-relativistic limit, but above
a few tens of , an approximate relativistic-equivalent version should be used,
requiring modification of several elements in the calculation. First, the
center-of-mass energies, angles, and the relative velocity appearing in the
Sommerfeld parameter should be calculated according to relativistic
kinematics. Second, in the relativistic picture the reduced mass and center-
of-mass wavenumber are no longer suitable to describe the relative motion
between projectile and target, so approximations are required. We used the
relativistic approximations of Eqs. 17 and 20 in Ingemarsson’s topical study
Ingemarsson (1974) that base the wavenumber on the relativistic momentum in
the center-of-momentum frame and treat the center-of-momentum motion of the
target as non-relativistic. These approximations modify the wavenumber and
reduced mass appearing throughout this section as:

$\begin{split}k&\rightarrow\frac{m_{1}[E(E+2m_{2})]^{1/2}}{[(m_{1}+m_{2})^{2}+2m_{1}E)]^{1/2}}\\\
\mu&\rightarrow
k^{2}\frac{E^{\prime}}{{E^{\prime}}^{2}-{m_{2}}^{2}}.\end{split}$ (39)

Here, $m_{1}$ is the target rest mass, $m_{2}$ is the projectile rest mass,
$E$ is the incident projectile energy in the laboratory frame, and
$E^{\prime}$ is the sum of center of mass energies of the target and
projectile, plus the rest mass of the projectile. These approximations for $k$
and $\mu$ can be inserted in the preceding equations to yield the
relativistic-approximate forms that we actually used to perform calculations.

To generate scattering observables for spin-1/2 particles, two $S$-matrix
terms, corresponding to $j=l\pm 1/2$, must be calculated for each partial wave
$l>0$. From these terms the non-spinflip amplitude $A(\theta)$ and spinflip
amplitude $B(\theta)$ can be calculated for scattering angle $\theta$:

$\begin{split}A(\theta)&=\frac{i}{2k}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}e^{2i\sigma_{l}}(2l+1-(l+1)S_{l}^{+}-lS_{l}^{-})P_{l}(\cos{\theta})\\\
&-\frac{\eta}{2k\sin^{2}\frac{1}{2}\theta}e^{2i(\sigma_{0}-\eta\log\sin\frac{1}{2}\theta)}\end{split}$
(40)

$B(\theta)=\frac{i}{2k}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}e^{2i\sigma_{l}}(S_{l}^{-}-S_{l}^{+})P_{l}^{1}(\cos{\theta}).$
(41)

Here, $S_{l}^{+}$ is the $S$-matrix element for $j=l+\frac{1}{2}$ and
$S_{l}^{-}$ is the $S$-matrix element for $j=l-\frac{1}{2}$ (setting
$S_{0}^{-}\equiv 0$). $P_{l}$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $l$,
$P_{l}^{1}$ is the associated Legendre polynomial of degree $l$ and order $m$,
and $\sigma_{l}$ is the Coulomb phase shift:

$\sigma_{l}=\arg\Gamma(l+1+i\eta),$ (42)

$\Gamma$ being the gamma function. Equations 40 and 41 combine Eqs. 8 and 9 of
Ingemarsson, which are for spin-1/2 neutral particles, with the spinless,
charged particle scattering amplitudes of DB Eq. 2.23. Specifically, the final
term of Eq. 40 that involves $\eta$ is the Coulomb scattering amplitude (DB
Eq. 2.13).

Finally, from the scattering amplitudes, the differential elastic cross
section is simply

$\frac{d\sigma(\theta)}{d\Omega}=|A(\theta)|^{2}+|B(\theta)|^{2},$ (43)

and the analyzing power is

$A_{y}=\frac{A^{*}(\theta)B(\theta)+A(\theta)B^{*}(\theta)}{\frac{d\sigma(\theta)}{d\Omega}},$
(44)

per Eqs. 10 and 11 of Ingemarsson. The reaction (non-elastic) and total cross
sections can be computed directly from the $S$ matrix:

$\sigma_{rxn}=\frac{\pi}{k^{2}}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(l+1)(1-|S_{l}^{+}|^{2})+l(1-|S_{l}^{-}|^{2})$
(45)
$\sigma_{tot}=\frac{2\pi}{k^{2}}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(l+1)(1-\text{Re}[S_{l}^{+}])+l(1-\text{Re}[S_{l}^{-}]).$
(46)

## Supplemental Material A: Posterior samples for CHUQ and KDUQ

This section of the supplemental material describes how to access and use CHUQ
and KDUQ. For functional forms of the potentials and additional information on
their construction, see the main text.

CHUQ and KDUQ each consist of an ensemble of samples of potential parameters.
Each OMP sample is the terminal position of one MCMC walker at the end of
training against the appropriate training data corpus. For both CHUQ and KDUQ,
two versions of the uncertainty-quantified potential are provided: one trained
using the “democratic” covariance ansatz, and one trained using the “federal”
ansatz as described in the main text. The resulting potential ensembles are
denoted CHUQDemocratic/CHUQFederal and KDUQDemocratic/KDUQFederal. With the
exception of Fig. 13 in the main text, which compares the democratic and
federal ansatze, all figures were created with the democratic versions of the
potentials. Given that the federal ansatz is (arguably) a more realistic
representation of the unknown data covariance, we recommend that practitioners
use the federal versions of CHUQ and KDUQ for their applications, though
comparison of observables calculated using the two versions suggests that the
differences are small. (The largest differences were for proton reaction cross
sections at energies above 50 MeV, as shown in Fig. 13 in the main text).

In the attached file supplement_parameters.tar, each ensemble is placed in a
separate directory. The samples comprising the ensembles are placed in
separate subdirectories, each labeled by the index of the corresponding
walker, starting with 0. Within each numbered subdirectory, there are two
files: parameters.json and modelErrors.json. The potential parameters are
stored in parameters.json. For example, the file
KDUQFederal/10/parameters.json includes the eleventh posterior sample for the
KDUQFederal ensemble.

In the parameter file, the potential subterms and their constituent parameters
represented as key-value pairs. For example, the canonical CH89 potential
parameter values would be represented as:

⬇

{

“CH89RealCentral”: {

“V_0”: 52.90,

“V_t”: 13.10,

“V_e”: -0.299,

“r_o”: 1.250,

“r_o_0”: -0.225,

“a_0”: 0.690

},

“CH89Coulomb”: {

“r_c”: 1.24,

“r_c_0”: 0.12

},

“CH89SpinOrbit”: {

“V_so”: 5.9,

“r_so”: 1.34,

“r_so_0”: -1.2,

“a_so”: 0.63

},

“CH89ImagCentral”: {

“W_v0”: 7.8,

“W_ve0”: 35.0,

“W_vew”: 16.0,

“W_s0”: 10.0,

“W_st”: 18.0,

“W_se0”: 36.0,

“W_sew”: 37.0,

“r_w”: 1.33,

“r_w0”: -0.42,

“a_w”: 0.69

}

}

and the canonical KD potential parameter values would be represented as:

⬇

{

“KDHartreeFock”: {

“V1_0”: 59.30,

“V1_asymm”: 21.0,

“V1_A”: 0.024,

“V2_0_n”: 0.007228,

“V2_A_n”: 1.48e-6,

“V3_0_n”: 1.994e-5,

“V3_A_n”: 2.0e-8,

“V2_0_p”: 0.007067,

“V2_A_p”: 4.23e-6,

“V3_0_p”: 1.729e-5,

“V3_A_p”: 1.136e-8,

“V4_0”: 7e-9,

“r_0”: 1.3039,

“r_A”: 0.4054,

“a_0”: 0.6778,

“a_A”: 1.487e-4

},

“KDCoulomb”: {

“r_C_0”: 1.198,

“r_C_A”: 0.697,

“r_C_A2”: 12.994

},

“KDRealSpinOrbit”: {

“V1_0”: 5.922,

“V1_A”: 0.0030,

“V2_0”: 0.0040,

“r_0”: 1.1854,

“r_A”: 0.647,

“a_0”: 0.59

},

“KDImagSpinOrbit”: {

“W1_0”: -3.1,

“W2_0”: 160

},

“KDImagVolume”: {

“W1_0_n”: 12.195,

“W1_A_n”: 0.0167,

“W1_0_p”: 14.667,

“W1_A_p”: 0.009629,

“W2_0”: 73.55,

“W2_A”: 0.0795

},

“KDImagSurface”: {

“D1_0”: 16.0,

“D1_asymm”: 16.0,

“D2_0”: 0.0180,

“D2_A”: 0.003802,

“D2_A2”: 8.0,

“D2_A3”: 156.0,

“D3_0”: 11.5,

“r_0”: 1.3424,

“r_A”: 0.01585,

“a_0_n”: 0.5446,

“a_A_n”: 1.656e-4,

“a_0_p”: 0.5187,

“a_A_p”: 5.205e-4

}

}

In addition to the potential parameters, the “unaccounted-for uncertainties”
described in the main text are provided in the modelErrors.json file in a
similar format. For example, the following structure contains four such
uncertainties: differential elastic scattering unaccounted-for uncertainties
of 50% (both for protons and for neutrons) and analyzing power unaccounted-for
uncertainties of 60% (both for protons and for neutrons):

⬇

{

“ECS_p”: 0.5,

“ECS_n”: 0.5,

“APower_p”: 0.6,

“APower_n”: 0.6,

}

Two example Python scripts are included to serve as a reference for those
wishing to use CHUQ/KDUQ in their applications. The first, accessExample.py,
demonstrates access and inspection of KDUQDemocratic samples. The second,
newSampleExample.py, illustrates one approach for calculating the
KDUQDemocratic sample mean and covariance and generation of an arbitrary
number of new KDUQDemocratic samples using the mean and covariance. To
simplify this process, the script defines two flattening methods that map the
nested potential parameter structures (shown above) into one-dimensional
lists. For convenience, the second script also makes use of the numpy and
pandas Python modules, available at the Python Package Index.

Finally, in the CHUQDemocratic and KDUQDemocratic directories, we include
correlogram figures to illustrate the covariance structure over ensemble
samples. In each figure, the degree of correlation is indicated by the cell
size and color intensity, with blue indicating positive correlation and red
indicating negative correlation. The black dashed lines denote groupings of
related parameters (those belonging to the same potential subterm).

## Supplemental Material B: KDUQ, CHUQ, and Test corpora

In this section, we list the experimental data used to train and test the UQ
OMPs described in the main text. To enable direct comparison with the original
KD and CH89 treatments, we re-assembled (as faithfully as possible) the same
corpora of experimental training data listed in the original publications,
which we refer to the “KD corpus” and “CH89 corpus”, respectively. To
distinguish these corpora as listed in the original publications from our
present reconstruction of these corpora, we use the names “KDUQ corpus ” and
“CHUQ corpus” to refer to the corpora codified in this section. Also tabulated
are the data comprising the “Test corpus”, all of which post-date the
publication of the original CH89 Varner et al. (1991) and KD Koning and
Delaroche (2003) treatments.

Before detailing the assembly of these corpora, a few methodological comments
are worth making. Wherever possible, for the data sets listed in the KD and
CH89 corpora, we drew on experimental data as tabulated in the EXFOR
experimental reaction database Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data () (EXFOR).
In the instances where we could not locate the data in EXFOR, we turned to the
original publication (as listed in the canonical KD or CH89 papers) and
retrieved the data from that source. In the few remaining cases where the data
either could not be found in the original literature or were missing critical
features (such as experimental errors), we omitted the data set from our
reconstructed corpora and documented the discrepancy. For consistency, we
prioritized the labels and metadata from the EXFOR entries, as they existed at
the time of our accession of those data. If a data set was unavailable or
incomplete in EXFOR, we then used the labels and metadata as we interpreted
from the original literature source. We justify this as an attempt to make our
analysis as reproducible as possible: because EXFOR is regularly updated as
errors are identified and corrected, our hope is that future investigators
wishing to use the same data corpus need only refer to the EXFOR accession
numbers we provide here and not start “from scratch”. A consequence of this
approach is that our reconstructed corpora span slightly fewer data compared
to the the original corpora because we were unable to locate, either in EXFOR
or in the original literature, some data sets that were nominally included in
the original corpus. These few instances we attribute either to typographic
errors in the references as listed in the KD and CH89 publications or our own
error in searching the available literature. For construction of the Test
corpus, all data were drawn from EXFOR.

Once the data sets were collected and metadata assigned, we applied a series
of munging steps to prepare the corpus for OMP analysis. First, units were
homogenized: scattering energies, scattering angles, integral cross sections,
and differential cross sections were transformed to (lab frame), degrees
(center-of-momentum frame), m , and m /, respectively. All proton differential
elastic cross section data sets that were provided relative to Rutherford
scattering were rescaled into absolute terms (assuming relativistic
kinematics). Any datum that was missing a “necessary feature” was flagged and
removed from the KDUQ/CHUQ corpora. For example, for differential elastic
cross sections, these necessary features were: scattering energy, scattering
angle, cross section, and cross section error. Many EXFOR-based data list more
than one type of error, for instance, digitization error, statistical error,
etc. For a given datum, we assigned the overall error according to the
following list of EXFOR error labels, in order of preference: ERR-T (total
error), (+DATA-ERR + -DATA-ERR)/2 (average of positive and negative error),
ERR-S (statistical error), ERR-DIG (digitization error), ERR-SYS (systematic
error). Absent a covariance matrix for each data set (none were available for
the data sets in the KDUQ/CHUQ corpus), our assignment of overall error is not
unique, but is at least reproducible. Additionally, in the KD corpus, many of
the neutron total cross section data sets had an unnecessarily large number of
energy bins for the requirements of optical potential optimization. For
instance, the data set from 250 to 20 for 27Al (EXFOR Acc. No. 22331004)
includes nearly 50,000 unique energy bins. Calculating cross sections for each
of these energies in our analysis would be computationally expensive for
negligible benefit, given the slowly-varying nature of the total cross section
in this energy regime. For these neutron total cross section data sets, rather
than include the full complement of neutron total cross section data, we
downsampled each data set to have one datum per — an energy step still
sufficiently fine under the smoothness assumptions inherent to a global
optical potential.

Due to rounding and discrepancies in tabulation, the scattering energies
listed here do not always exactly match those reported from the KD corpus or
the references therein. The scattering energies listed here are as provided in
EXFOR, or, if not available there, transcribed directly from the literature
reference. To facilitate others’ use of the KDUQ corpus for future optical
model work, we list the EXFOR accession number the data sets that we drew from
EXFOR. For the few data sets that were not available in EXFOR, this field is
filled with “-” in the following tables, and the original reference listed in
the Comments following each table. The Comments also document special cases
and notable differences between the original corpora and our reconstructions.
In the tables, all listed energies are in units of .

### Assembling the KDUQ corpus

Tables 1, 2, and 7 of Koning and Delaroche (2003) list five of the six sectors
of experimental data used in the original Koning-Delaroche analysis: neutron
differential elastic scattering cross sections and analyzing powers, neutron
total cross sections, and proton differential elastic scattering cross
sections and analyzing powers. The sixth sector, proton reaction cross
sections, was drawn from Carlson (1996) and Ingemarsson et al. (1999),
following the original analysis.

During data assembly we noted two general types of discrepancy between the
labeling and citations given in the original Koning-Delaroche analysis, the
data currently available in EXFOR, and the labeling as reported in the
original experimental literature. The first type of discrepancy was a
difference in target nucleus listed for a given data set. In some cases, this
involved a data set being labeled as being for an elemental (natural
abundance) target in one source but for an isotopic target in another (e.g.,
63Cu in EXFOR and the original reference, but ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu in the KD
corpus). In one case, the KD corpus lists a neutron differential elastic
scattering data set on ${}^{\text{nat}}$La at 7.8 MeV, but the cited reference
lists the scattering target as ${}^{\text{nat}}$Al, likely a typographic
error. Because both the target $A$ and asymmetry $(N-Z)/A$ enter the potential
definition, errors in these metadata could bias the potential parameters,
especially those with exponential dependence on $A$. The second type of
discrepancy concerned several data sets listed in the original KD corpus as
having scattering energies we were unable to locate either in EXFOR or in the
original literature. In a few of these cases, the issue was inaccessibility of
the original literature source (e.g., unpublished work, conference
proceedings, or older PhD theses). In other cases, we located experimental
data in the original source, but could not find data points or sets at the
specified scattering energies. These data sets were omitted from the KDUQ
corpus. While the number of data sets affected by this issue was small,
because many KD potential depth parameters depend on the scattering energy to
the second and third power, any incorrect scattering energy labels could have
significant effect unless an outlier procedure, such as that detailed in the
main text, is applied.

### Assembling the CHUQ corpus

Table 5 of Varner et al. (1991) lists the four sectors of experimental data
used in the original CH89 analysis: differential elastic scattering cross
sections and analyzing powers for both neutrons and protons. Proton data were
collected at four facilities: the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory
(TUNL), the Eindhoven University of Technology, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), and the Research Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP) in Osaka. Neutron
data were collected at two facilities: TUNL and the Ohio University
Accelerator Laboratory (OUAL). As the authors of CH89 point out, the fact that
only a few laboratories were used reduces the likelihood of systematic
discrepancies between data sets, a potential advantage for their OMP analysis.
During assembly, the main discrepancy between the metadata as listed the
original analysis and the data in EXFOR were a handful of missing (p,p) data
sets on 58Ni, 142Nd, 148Sm, and 150Sm from Eindhoven. Neither EXFOR nor the
primary literature cited for these data sets refer to these targets, or if the
target is included, these sources give a different scattering energy for the
target in question. We struck these data sets from the CHUQ corpus. Given that
these data sets comprise a small fraction of the overall corpus, it is
unlikely their omission impacted our analysis.

A more difficult obstacle was faithful assignment of experimental
uncertainties. For thirty-six of the proton data sets and twelve of the
neutron data sets used for CH89, the corresponding EXFOR entry included
multiple columns of partial experimental uncertainty. For many proton data
sets, one or more error columns consisted of almost all “null” values and no
additional information was available on whether the multiple columns of
experimental uncertainties were correlated or independent. For consistency
across all data sets, we dropped entirely any mostly-“null” columns and
accepted the uncertainties from the other column as the overall uncertainty.
Consequently, for a few of the proton scattering data in the CHUQ corpus, the
associated experimental uncertainties may differ than those used in the
original CH89 corpus. In the 12 neutron data sets with multiple experimental
uncertainty columns, neither column had “null” values. We chose to combine the
columns in quadrature into a new “overall uncertainty” column. Such cases are
documented in the notes following the CHUQ corpus tables below. Regardless of
these potential differences, because we employed both outlier rejection and a
residual unaccounted-for uncertainty term in our OMP characterizations, we
expect that these differences had negligible impact on the present analysis.

Lastly, rather than fit the analyzing power data directly (as in Koning-
Delaroche), the authors of CH89 chose to fit proton analyzing power data as
“analyzing cross sections” $A_{y}\times\sigma_{el}$ (analyzing powers times
elastic cross sections). They explained that “this observable is preferable to
$A_{y}$, since theoretically $A_{y}$ is computed from it by dividing by
$\sigma$.” They estimated the uncertainty of $A_{y}\times\sigma_{el}$ by
combining the individual uncertainties of $A_{y}$ and $\sigma_{el}$ according
to uncorrelated propagation of uncertainties, which they noted was justified
by a separate analysis. The practical effect was to give “polarization
observables in the $A_{y}\times\sigma_{el}$ form…a more equitable weighting in
the fitting process.” In our analysis, we chose to fit analyzing powers
directly to avoid treating neutron and proton analyzing data differently. At
low angles, the low-angle proton differential elastic cross sections are
dominated by Coulomb and are often orders of magnitude larger than those cross
sections at higher angles. Thus, low-angle proton cross sections typically
have far smaller reported statistical uncertainties than neutron cross
sections at the same angles. As such, it is possible that using “analyzing
cross sections” could result in bias to asymmetry-dependent terms, so we
elected to fit analyzing powers directly. However, due to our employment of
outlier-rejection and unaccounted-for uncertainties, our judgment was that
treating the analyzing powers directly versus rescaling them into “analyzing
cross sections” would not appreciably impact our results.

### Assembling the Test corpus

Our general criteria for populating the Test corpus were as follows:

  * •

Data should be directly measured, not a derived or calculated quantity

  * •

Data collection should post-date the publication of the original KD and CH89
treatments

  * •

Data should be of the same types (e.g., absolute neutron total cross sections,
differential elastic cross sections) used in the training corpora

  * •

Data should be plausibly describable by a low-to-intermediate-energy optical
potential treatment (excluding, for example, scattering measurements at 1 , or
proton elastic scattering measurements probing resonances below the Coulomb
barrier)

  * •

Data should have the minimum essential features and meta-data enabling
consistent treatment beside the CH89 and KD corpora, including experimental
uncertainties, and be free of plain typographic or methodological issues

We canvassed the EXFOR database for data sets subject to the above constraints
and recovered roughly 250 data sets. Among data fulfilling these criteria,
several special cases were encountered; our treatment of these data is
detailed in the Comments following each data table. Overall, we note that
compared to the four decades prior to the publication of the KD global
potential (1960-2003), the rate of scattering data measurements has declined
in the last two decades, at least as indicated by the number of new EXFOR
entries. As the reach and number of radioactive beam facilities expand,
smaller cyclotron facilities are closed, digital data acquisition becomes the
norm, and funding preferences change, the selection of scattering targets and
energies has also shifted. Due to these factors it seems likely that the data
comprising the Test Corpus represent a somewhat different underlying
distribution than those comprising the KD and CH89 corpora; analysts wishing
to compare the performance of their OMPs against these corpora should keep
this in mind.

## KDUQ corpus

### Neutron differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
24Mg | 3.4 | 30463008
| 6.1 | 21490002
| 9.76 | 21773002
| 14.83 | 21773010
${}^{\text{nat}}$Mg | 1.969 | 11493004
| 2.958 | 11493004
| 3.948 | 11493004
| 4.958 | 11493004
| 5.44 | 10105006
| 6.44 | 10105006
| 7.55 | 10105006
| 7.97 | 11455002
| 8.56 | 10105006
| 11.01 | 10633002
| 14.1 | 11286009
| 21.6 | 22048002
27Al | 3.2 | 11511002
| 5.44 | 10106025
| 6.44 | 10106025
| 7.54 | 10106025
| 7.62 | 22532002
| 8.56 | 10106025
| 10.873 | 12875002
| 13.883 | 12875002
| 16.883 | 12875002
| 18 | 12973005
| 20 | 12973005
| 22 | 12973005
| 25 | 12973005
| 26 | 12973005
| 84 | 11472002
| 96 | 21123003
| 136 | 21374007
28Si | 21.7 | 13125002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Si | 5.44 | 10107006
| 6.37 | 10107006
| 6.44 | 10107006
| 7.55 | 10107006
| 7.958 | 12927006
| 8.56 | 10107006
| 9.948 | 12927006
| 11 | 10697002
| 11.936 | 12927006
| 13.965 | 12927006
| 16.917 | 12927006
| 20 | 10697003
| 26 | 10697003
| 30.3 | 13902002
| 40 | 13902002
| 55 | 22480003
| 65 | 22480003
| 75 | 22480003
31P | 3.5 | 20341010
| 3.85 | 20341010
| 4.2 | 20341010
| 4.5 | 20341010
| 4.8 | 20341010
| 5.95 | 21046008
| 7.79 | 10263006
| 9.05 | 10263006
32S | 21.7 | 13125004
${}^{\text{nat}}$S | 3 | 20019020
| 4 | 20019020
| 5.5 | 10108008
| 6.37 | 10108008
| 7.05 | 20019020
| 7.6 | 10108008
| 7.956 | 12927008
| 8.52 | 10108008
| 9.947 | 12927008
| 11.01 | 10633004
| 11.933 | 12927008
| 13.922 | 12927008
| 16.917 | 12927008
| 20 | 10697004
| 26 | 10697004
| 30.3 | 12871002
| 40.3 | 12871002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cl | 14.1 | 41003002
${}^{\text{nat}}$K | 3 | 21098002
| 3.74 | 11618004
| 4.33 | 11618004
| 6.52 | 11618004
| 7.91 | 11618004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ar | 7.75 | 22121004
| 14 | 11418005
40Ca | 2.06 | 11618009
| 3.29 | 11618009
| 5.3 | 11618009
| 5.88 | 11618009
| 6.52 | 11618009
| 7.91 | 11618009
| 9.91 | 12785002
| 11.01 | 10633005
| 11.91 | 12785002
| 13.9 | 12785002
| 16.916 | 12996002
| 19.0 | 13127002
| 20.0 | 10697005
| 21.6 | 22048010
| 26.0 | 10697005
| 30.3 | 12724002
| 40.0 | 12724002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca | 65.0 | 13510004
45Sc | 2.62 | 13547002
| 2.86 | 13547002
| 3.83 | 13547002
| 5.0 | 13547003
| 5.9 | 13547003
| 6.5 | 13547003
| 7.14 | 13547003
| 8.03 | 13547003
| 9.06 | 13547003
| 10.0 | 13547003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ti | 4.5 | 13689002
| 5.5 | 13689002
| 6.5 | 13689002
| 7.55 | 13689002
| 8.08 | 13689002
| 8.41 | 13689002
| 9.06 | 13689002
| 9.5 | 13689002
| 9.99 | 13689002
| 13.95 | 11486011
51V | 5.44 | 10110002
| 6.44 | 10110002
| 7.99 | 22409002
| 8.56 | 10110002
| 9.01 | 22409002
| 10.07 | 22409002
| 10.91 | 22409002
| 11.9 | 22409002
| 13.03 | 22409002
| 14.37 | 22409002
52Cr | 3.0 | 20019063
| 4.0 | 20019063
| 4.34 | 10413002
| 4.92 | 10413002
| 6.44 | 10413002
| 7.54 | 10413002
| 7.95 | 22408002
| 8.56 | 10413002
| 9.0 | 22408002
| 9.8 | 22408002
| 10.79 | 22408002
| 11.44 | 22408002
| 12.01 | 22408002
| 12.7 | 22408002
| 13.65 | 22408002
| 14.1 | 22408002
| 14.76 | 22408002
| 21.6 | 22048012
54Fe | 7.0 | 10469002
| 8.5 | 10469002
| 9.94 | 10958002
| 11 | 12862002
| 11.93 | 10958002
| 13.92 | 10958002
| 16.929 | 12997002
| 20 | 12862002
| 24 | 12862002
| 26 | 12862002
55Mn | 2.47 | 20019082
| 3.0 | 20019082
| 3.49 | 20019082
| 4.0 | 20019082
| 4.56 | 20019082
| 6.09 | 20019082
| 7.05 | 20019082
| 8.05 | 20019082
| 11.01 | 10633007
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 55.0 | 22480004
| 65.0 | 22480004
| 75.0 | 22480004
56Fe | 4.6 | 11708006
| 5.0 | 11708006
| 5.05 | 10037024
| 5.56 | 11708006
| 6.53 | 11708006
| 7.55 | 11708006
| 7.96 | 10958004
| 9.94 | 10958004
| 11 | 12862003
| 11.93 | 10958004
| 13.92 | 10958004
| 20 | 12862003
| 21.6 | 22048014
| 24.8 | 11490003
| 26 | 12862003
58Ni | 7.904 | 12930002
| 9.958 | 12930002
| 11.952 | 12930002
| 13.941 | 12930002
| 16.934 | 12997006
| 24.0 | 10953002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ni | 3.0 | 20019132
| 3.49 | 20019132
| 4.0 | 20019132
| 4.56 | 20019132
| 4.92 | 10113002
| 6.09 | 20019132
| 6.44 | 10113002
| 7.05 | 20019132
| 7.54 | 10113002
| 11.01 | 10633010
| 21.6 | 22048018
59Co | 2.0 | 20019112
| 2.47 | 20019112
| 3.0 | 20019112
| 3.49 | 20019112
| 4.0 | 20019112
| 4.56 | 20019112
| 5.0 | 10112012
| 5.44 | 10112012
| 6.09 | 20019112
| 6.44 | 10112012
| 7.05 | 20019112
| 7.55 | 10112012
| 8.05 | 20019112
| 8.56 | 10112012
| 11.01 | 10633009
| 13.95 | 11486015
| 21.6 | 22048016
| 23.0 | 12962004
60Ni | 4.34 | 10113007
| 4.92 | 10113007
| 6.44 | 10487002
| 7.54 | 10487002
| 7.904 | 12930004
| 8.56 | 10487002
| 9.958 | 12930004
| 11.952 | 12930004
| 13.941 | 12930004
| 24.0 | 10953004
63Cu | 5.5 | 10414002
| 7.0 | 10414002
| 7.96 | 10958006
| 8.5 | 10414002
| 9.94 | 10958006
| 11.93 | 10958006
| 13.92 | 10958006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu | 1.6 | 12869003
| 2.0 | 12869003
| 2.2 | 12869003
| 2.6 | 12869003
| 3.0 | 12869003
| 3.4 | 12869003
| 3.8 | 12869003
| 84.0 | 11472003
| 96.0 | 21123006
| 155 | -
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ge | 7.55 | 11202016
${}^{\text{nat}}$As | 8.05 | 20162006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Se | 1.0 | 11637022
| 3.2 | 11511017
| 3.66 | 11617019
| 14.1 | 20199003
80Se | 4.0 | 40221014
| 8.0 | 12887003
| 10.0 | 12887003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Sr | 3.2 | 11511018
| 3.66 | 11617024
| 4.37 | 40101008
| 14.76 | 20223006
88Sr | 11.0 | 10729004
89Y | 3.83 | 12835003
| 4.5 | 12979002
| 5.0 | 12979002
| 5.5 | 10130002
| 5.9 | 12979002
| 6.5 | 12979002
| 7.14 | 12979002
| 7.5 | 12979002
| 7.962 | 12994002
| 8.4 | 12979002
| 9.06 | 12979002
| 9.5 | 12979002
| 9.954 | 12994002
| 11.0 | 12774002
| 11.944 | 12994002
| 13.934 | 12994002
| 16.928 | 12994002
| 21.6 | 22048020
90Zr | 2.0 | 10468003
| 2.11 | 10621002
| 2.6 | 10468003
| 3.0 | 10468003
| 3.5 | 10468003
| 4.0 | 10468003
| 5.17 | 10621002
| 5.9 | 21638002
| 6.95 | 21638002
| 7.75 | 21638002
| 8.0 | 13160002
| 10.0 | 13160003
| 11.0 | 10729002
| 24.0 | 13160004
91Zr | 8.0 | 13160007
| 10.0 | 13160008
| 24.0 | 13160009
${}^{\text{nat}}$Zr | 55.0 | 22480005
| 65.0 | 22480005
| 75.0 | 22480005
92Mo | 1.5 | 10391018
| 1.8 | 10524002
| 2.0 | 10524002
| 2.2 | 10524002
| 2.4 | 10524002
| 2.6 | 10524002
| 2.8 | 10524002
| 3.0 | 10524002
| 3.2 | 10524002
| 3.4 | 10524002
| 3.6 | 10524002
| 3.8 | 10524002
| 4.0 | 10524002
| 6.0 | 12782002
| 9.0 | 10867002
| 11.0 | 10867002
| 20.0 | 10867002
| 26.0 | 10867002
92Zr | 2.0 | 10468006
| 3.0 | 10468006
| 4.0 | 10468006
| 5.9 | 21638004
| 6.95 | 21638004
| 7.75 | 21638004
| 8.0 | 13160012
| 10.0 | 13160013
| 24.0 | 13160014
93Nb | 2.55 | 12797003
| 2.85 | 12797003
| 4.5 | 12937002
| 5.0 | 12937002
| 5.5 | 12937002
| 5.9 | 12937002
| 6.5 | 12937002
| 7.14 | 12937002
| 7.5 | 12937002
| 8.03 | 12937002
| 8.4 | 12937002
| 9.06 | 12937002
| 9.941 | 12995002
| 11.01 | 10633011
| 11.928 | 12995002
| 13.915 | 12995002
| 16.91 | 12995002
| 20.0 | 13532002
94Zr | 1.5 | 10391010
| 8.0 | 13160017
| 10.0 | 13160018
| 24.0 | 13160019
96Mo | 1.5 | 10391023
| 1.8 | 10524003
| 2.0 | 10524003
| 2.2 | 10524003
| 2.4 | 10524003
| 2.6 | 10524003
| 2.8 | 10524003
| 3.0 | 10524003
| 3.2 | 10524003
| 3.4 | 10524003
| 3.6 | 10524003
| 3.8 | 10524003
| 4.0 | 10524003
| 6.0 | 12782010
| 9.0 | 10867003
| 11.0 | 10867003
| 20.0 | 10867003
| 26.0 | 10867003
98Mo | 1.8 | 10524004
| 2.0 | 10524004
| 2.2 | 10524004
| 2.4 | 10524004
| 2.6 | 10524004
| 2.8 | 10524004
| 3.0 | 10524004
| 3.2 | 10524004
| 3.4 | 10524004
| 3.6 | 10524004
| 3.8 | 10524004
| 4.0 | 10524004
| 9.0 | 10867004
| 11.0 | 10867004
| 20.0 | 10867004
| 26.0 | 10867004
100Mo | 1.5 | 10391028
| 1.8 | 10524005
| 2.0 | 10524005
| 2.2 | 10524005
| 2.4 | 10524005
| 2.6 | 10524005
| 2.8 | 10524005
| 3.0 | 10524005
| 3.2 | 10524005
| 3.4 | 10524005
| 3.6 | 10524005
| 3.8 | 10524005
| 4.0 | 10524005
| 6.0 | 12782014
| 9.0 | 10867005
| 11.0 | 10867005
| 20.0 | 10867005
| 26.0 | 10867005
103Rh | 1.5 | 12796003
| 1.8 | 12796003
| 2.3 | 12796003
| 2.8 | 12796003
| 3.25 | 12796004
| 3.75 | 12796004
| 4.505 | 13589002
| 5.005 | 13589002
| 5.505 | 13589002
| 5.905 | 13589002
| 6.505 | 13589002
| 7.14 | 13589002
| 7.505 | 13589002
| 8.03 | 13589002
| 8.405 | 13589002
| 9.06 | 13589002
| 9.505 | 13589002
| 9.995 | 13589002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Pd | 1.5 | 12757003
| 1.8 | 12757003
| 2.3 | 12757003
| 2.8 | 12757003
| 3.25 | 12757003
| 3.75 | 12757003
| 5.9 | 13182002
| 7.14 | 13182002
| 8.03 | 13182002
107Ag | 1.6 | 10876003
| 2.2 | 10876003
| 2.8 | 10876003
| 3.4 | 10876003
| 4.0 | 10876003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ag | 4.51 | 13638002
| 5.01 | 13638002
| 5.51 | 13638002
| 5.91 | 13638002
| 6.51 | 13638002
| 7.14 | 13638002
| 7.51 | 13638002
| 8.03 | 13638002
| 8.41 | 13638002
| 9.06 | 13638002
| 9.51 | 13638002
| 9.99 | 13638002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cd | 2.25 | 12804002
| 2.85 | 12804002
| 3.4 | 12804003
| 4.0 | 12804003
| 4.5 | 13585002
| 5.0 | 13585002
| 5.5 | 13585002
| 5.9 | 13585002
| 6.5 | 13585002
| 7.14 | 13585002
| 7.5 | 13585003
| 8.08 | 13585002
| 8.41 | 13585002
| 9.06 | 13585002
| 9.5 | 13585002
| 9.99 | 13585002
| 14.6 | 11465007
| 96.0 | 21123007
${}^{\text{nat}}$In | 4.5 | 13193002
| 5.0 | 13193002
| 5.9 | 13193002
| 7.14 | 13193002
| 8.03 | 13193002
| 9.06 | 13193002
| 9.5 | 13193002
| 9.99 | 13193002
| 11.01 | 10633016
| 14.0 | 11568004
116Sn | 9.945 | 13158005
| 11.0 | 10817006
| 13.925 | 13158005
| 24.0 | 10817006
118Sn | 11.0 | 10817007
| 24.0 | 10817007
${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn | 6.04 | 11287037
| 24.0 | 11490004
| 65.0 | 13510006
120Sn | 1.55 | 12795002
| 2.03 | 12795002
| 2.15 | 12795002
| 2.25 | 12795002
| 2.45 | 12795002
| 2.65 | 12795002
| 2.75 | 12795002
| 3.0 | 12795003
| 3.4 | 12795003
| 3.8 | 12795003
| 4.0 | 12795003
| 9.943 | 13158007
| 13.923 | 13158007
| 16.905 | 13158007
123Sb | 1.55 | 12805003
| 2.05 | 12805003
| 2.55 | 12805003
| 3.0 | 12805004
| 3.4 | 12805004
| 4.0 | 12805004
| 4.5 | 13802002
| 5.5 | 13802002
| 5.9 | 13802002
| 6.5 | 13802002
| 7.14 | 13802002
| 7.55 | 13802002
| 8.08 | 13802002
| 8.41 | 13802002
| 9.06 | 13802002
| 9.5 | 13802002
| 9.99 | 13802002
| 14.0 | 11806004
124Sn | 11.0 | 10817010
| 24.0 | 10817010
127I | 4.0 | 40221029
| 16.1 | 21664012
${}^{\text{nat}}$Te | 3.2 | 11511027
| 14.0 | 40793008
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ba | 1.0 | 11637055
| 4.1 | 11621023
| 5.0 | 11321009
${}^{\text{nat}}$La | 2.545 | 20337002
| 3.07 | 20337002
| 3.578 | 20337002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ce | 0.98 | 21110007
| 3.2 | 11511030
| 5.0 | 11877006
| 21.6 | 22048022
141Pr | 1.2 | 21292003
| 1.5 | 20337008
| 2.03 | 20337008
| 2.545 | 20337008
| 3.07 | 20337008
| 3.2 | 11511031
| 3.578 | 20337008
| 5.0 | 11877007
| 8.0 | 12054005
142Nd | 7.0 | 21338002
144Nd | 7.0 | 21338003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Nd | 0.98 | 21110009
148Sm | 2.47 | 10718002
| 6.25 | 10528002
| 7.0 | 21337002
197Au | 4.1 | 11215049
| 5.0 | 11877009
| 7.0 | 20346018
| 8.05 | 20162024
${}^{\text{nat}}$Hg | 3.0 | 22029003
| 3.2 | 11511034
| 14.1 | 20199006
| 16.1 | 21664014
206Pb | 7.0 | 20346025
| 7.71 | 22121012
| 8.05 | 20162030
| 11.01 | 10633020
| 13.7 | 40288002
| 21.6 | 22048024
${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb | 155 | -
208Pb | 1.8 | 400750041
| 4.0 | 12903002
| 4.5 | 12903002
| 5.0 | 12903002
| 5.5 | 12903002
| 7.97 | 13531002
| 9.0 | 10871002
| 11.0 | 10871002
| 13.9 | 13685002
| 16.9 | 13685002
| 20.0 | 10871002
| 22.0 | 12865002
| 23.0 | 12962006
| 24.0 | 12865002
| 26.0 | 10871002
| 30.3 | 12701005
| 40 | 12701005
| 55.0 | 22480006
| 65.0 | 22480006
| 75.0 | 22480006
| 84 | 11472004
| 96.0 | 21123008
| 136.0 | 21374010
209Bi | 2 | 10846003
| 2.5 | 10846003
| 3.0 | 22029006
| 3 | 10846003
| 3.53 | 10846003
| 4 | 12903003
| 4.5 | 12903003
| 5 | 12903003
| 5.5 | 12903003
| 6 | 12903003
| 6.5 | 12903003
| 7 | 12903003
| 7.5 | 13199003
| 7.82 | 22121014
| 8 | 13199003
| 9 | 13199003
| 10 | 13199003
| 11 | 13199003
| 12 | 13199003
| 20 | 13199003
| 21.6 | 22048026
| 24 | 13199003

### Comments

  * 28Si: The data sets at 30.3 and 40 MeV from (Phys. Rev. C 28 p.2530 (1983)) listed as being for 28Si are actually from ${}^{\text{nat}}$Si; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Si for the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Si: There are 2 unique datasets at 6.4 MeV from ORNL Report 4517 (1970); which was used in the KD corpus is not specified. We kept both in the KDUQ corpus.

  * 40Ca: The data set at 11.0 MeV from NP/A 286 (1977) 232 was not available in EXFOR. In original literature, it was presented in a figure that was difficult to digitize; we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu: We were unable to locate the data set at 155 MeV in EXFOR. For these data we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: R. S. Harding (Physical Review, Vol.111, p.1164 (1958)).

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Sr: The data set at 0.9 MeV from Cox and Dowling (ANL Report No. ANL-7935 (1972)) includes no errors; we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 89Y: The data set at 3.8 MeV is apparently from Budtz-Jorgensen et al. (Zeitschrift für Physik A, Hadrons and Nuclei, Vol.319, p.47 (1984)), not PRC 34 (1986) 1599 as listed in the KD corpus.

  * 93Nb: The data sets 2.6 and 2.9 MeV ascribed to Smith, Guenther, and Whalen (Nucl. Phys. A vol 415 issue 1, page 1 (1984) are apparently available only in an earlier, separate report by the same authors (ANL Report No. 70 (1982)). For the KDUQ corpus, we used the data as listed in the earlier report. Additionally, the data set at 14.6 MeV does not appear to exist in the reference cited by the KD corpus (Pedroni et al. (PRC 43 2336 (1991))); we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cd: The data set at 7.5 MeV from NP/A 568 221 (1994) is actually the sum of elastic scattering and inelastic scattering to the first excited state (this state is low-lying and could not be resolved from the ground state in the scattering experiment). This quantity was described as “pseudo-elastic” and apparently analyzed as elastic in the original KD corpus. For consistency, we included it in the KDUQ corpus.

  * 120Sn: The data set at 6.04 MeV from Wilenzick et al., Nucl. Phys. vol. 62, p. 511 (1965) listed as being for 120Sn is actually from ${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn for the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 11 MeV listed in the KD Corpus as being for 120Sn apparently does not exist in Guss et al. (PRC 39 (1989) 405); we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$La: The data set at 7.8 MeV is listed in the KD corpus as being from Dagge et al. (PRC 39 (1989) 1768), but this reference reports scattering measurements on 27Al, not ${}^{\text{nat}}$La. As we were unable to locate any data set in EXFOR at this scattering energy for ${}^{\text{nat}}$La that might correspond to the experimental data shown in Fig. 28 of the canonical KD treatment, we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 142Nd: The data set at 2.5 MeV from Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 24 (1979) 854 includes no errors; we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 144Nd: The data set at 2.5 MeV from Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 24 (1979) 854 includes no errors; we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 197Au: The data set at 2.5 MeV from Day (Priv. comm. (1965)) includes no errors; we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Hg: The data set listed in the KD corpus as having a scattering energy of 14.8 MeV from Nauta et al. (Nucl. Phys. 2 (1956) 124) is actually at 14.1 MeV, as reported in the original publication. We assigned a scattering energy of 14.1 for the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb: We were unable to locate the data set at 155 MeV in EXFOR. For these data we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: R. S. Harding (Physical Review, Vol.111, p.1164 (1958)).

  * 208Pb: The data set at 21.6 MeV from Olsson et al. (NP/A 472 (1987) 237) was apparently from a target 88.2% enriched in 206Pb, and already appears as a dataset in the KD corpus under 206Pb. As such, we omitted it from 208Pb in the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 155 MeV from Phys. Rev. 111 (1958) 1164) listed in the KD corpus as being for 208Pb is actually from ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb; we assigned it to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 209Bi: For the data sets from 2-3.53 MeV from Das and Finlay (PRC 42 (1990) 1013), we used data from Nucl. Sci. Engrg. 75 69 (1980) (reference 220 in the KD Corpus) for the KDUQ corpus. For the data sets from 4.0-7.0 MeV from Das and Finlay (PRC 42 (1990) 1013), we used data from NP/A 443 249 (1985) (reference 23 in the KD Corpus) for the KDUQ corpus.

### Neutron analyzing powers

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
27Al | 7.62 | 22532004
| 14 | 13684002
| 17 | 13684002
40Ca | 9.91 | 12785003
| 11.91 | 12785003
| 13.9 | 12785003
| 16.923 | 12996004
54Fe | 9.941 | 12997004
| 13.937 | 12997004
| 16.93 | 12997004
58Ni | 9.906 | 12997008
| 13.94 | 12997008
| 16.934 | 12997008
65Cu | 9.96 | 12844003
| 13.9 | 12844003
89Y | 9.954 | 12994003
| 13.934 | 12994003
| 16.93 | 12994003
93Nb | 9.941 | 12995003
| 13.915 | 12995003
120Sn | 9.907 | 13158002
| 13.894 | 13158002
208Pb | 1.8 | 400750051
| 5.969 | 13531003
| 6.967 | 13531003
| 7.962 | 13531003
| 8.958 | 13531003
| 9.95 | 13531003
209Bi | 4.5 | 10855002
| 6 | 13680002
| 9 | 13680002

### Comments

No discrepancies were identified between the KD and KDUQ corpora for neutron
analyzing powers. For related information, see the Comments for neutron
differential elastic cross sections above (note that the formatting of the
original KD corpus did not explicitly distinguish between inclusion of
differential elastic cross section data sets and analyzing power data sets).

### Neutron total cross sections

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
${}^{\text{nat}}$Mg | 5.293-297.8 | 13753010
| 0.008-39.807 | 10791002
27Al | 1.999-80.62 | 12882005
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569008
| 0.935 | 21926003
| 0.25-19.286 | 22331004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Si | 0.187-47.68 | 10377005
| 1.996-79.828 | 12882006
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569009
${}^{\text{nat}}$S | 2.259-14.888 | 10047018
| 0.102 | 11540002
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753012
40Ca | 0.04-6.058 | 10721002
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569010
48Ti | 0.974-4.025 | 10669002
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753015
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cr | 0.185-29.306 | 10342004
52Cr | 1.0-4.15 | 12750002
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753017
| 0.021 | 20435003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 2.268 | 13727002
56Fe | 0.187-48.608 | 10377007
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753019
| 1.0-18.026 | 22258002
58Ni | 0.003-67.481 | 12972008
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753021
| 0.5-19.54 | 22314006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu | 1.2-4.5 | 12869002
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569011
89Y | 1.822-19.52 | 12853010
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753022
90Zr | 0.433-1.54 | 10338004
| 0.933-5.054 | 10468002
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569012
| 2.349 | 13736003
93Nb | 0.75-3.963 | 12797002
| 0.215-1.32 | 12853018
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569013
${}^{\text{nat}}$Mo | 2.253-14.713 | 10047047
| 0.103-1.105 | 10277034
| 0.215-1.32 | 12853021
| 1.822-19.28 | 12853022
| 0.985-4.195 | 12853023
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753023
${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn | 0.002 | 10639005
| 0.215-1.32 | 12853042
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569014
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ce | 2.26-14.866 | 10047062
| 17.5-27.8 | 11108033
| 2.253-56.92 | 12891002
| 0.182 | 20819002
| 160.0-280.0 | 22117011
| 1.013 | 30134005
197Au | 0.048-4.389 | 10935003
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753026
${}^{\text{nat}}$Hg | 2.255-14.873 | 10047087
| 0.04 | 11953009
| 5.293-297.8 | 13753027
| 1.007-2.007 | 30134010
208Pb | 2.491-14.137 | 10047089
| 0.717-1.719 | 12215003
| 17.665 | 13735002
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569018
209Bi | 2.376-13.977 | 10047093
| 0.011-1.013 | 10449003
| 1.237-3.353 | 108460021
| 69.547 | 13199004
| 5.293-297.772 | 13569019

### Comments

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Mg: a data set from the range to 39 MeV is referenced in the KD corpus as being from Lawson et al. (ORNL Report 6420), but these data were not available on EXFOR. For the KDUQ corpus, we used what are ostensibly the same data as published by Weigmann et al. (PRC 14 (1976) 1328).

  * 27Al: The data for this nucleus we sourced from EXFOR, where they are assigned slightly different references compared to the references given in the KD corpus (the scattering energy ranges listed in EXFOR match those as shown in the KD corpus).

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Si: The data set from Larson et al. (ORNL Report No. ORNL-TM-5618 (1976)) only has data up to 0.7 MeV, making it of limited value to OMP analysis that assumes a degree of smoothness in the imaginary strength not fulfilled in the resolved-resonance region. As such, we omitted this from the KDUQ corpus. The remaining TCS data we sourced from EXFOR, where they are listed under slightly different references compared to the KD corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$S: The KD corpus refers to Finlay et al. (PRC 47 (1993) 237) for this data set, but this reference has no data for natural S. We assume that the KD corpus meant to reference Abfalterer et al. (PRC 63 (2001) 44608), the other large-scale experimental campaign of neutron total cross sections conducted at LANSCE. In the KDUQ corpus, we use the data from that source.

  * 40Ca: the data set from Johnson et al. (Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 23 (1978) 636) is on EXFOR listed under Int. Conf. on Nucl. Phys., Munich 1 525 (1973); we used the latter reference and data set for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 52Cr: the data set from Perey (Priv. Comm. (1973)) listed as being for 52Cr in the KD corpus is actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cr; we assigned it to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cr for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 56Fe: the data set from U.S. D.O.E. Nuclear Data Committee Reports, No.33, p.142 (1984) listed as being for 56Fe is actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe; we assigned it to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 58Ni: EXFOR doesn’t appear to contain the data set with maximum scattering energy of 67.5 from Perey et al. (ORNL Report No. ORNL-TM-10841 (1988)); for the KDUQ corpus, we used the data set from Perey et al. (PRC 47 (1993) 1143).

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu: the data set from Pandey et al. (PRC 15 (1977) 600) only has data up to 1.12 MeV for 63Cuand 65Cu, making it of limited value to OMP analysis that assumes some degree of smoothness in the imaginary strength not fulfilled in the resonance region. As such, we omitted these from the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ce: We sourced these data from EXFOR, where they are assigned slightly different references compared to the KD corpus.

### Proton differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
27Al | 17.0 | O0262004
| 28.0 | C1208002
| 35.2 | O0083019
| 61.4 | O0211003
| 142.0 | O0247006
| 156.0 | O0049003
| 160.0 | D0283004
| 183.0 | O0365008
28Si | 17.8 | O0254009
| 28.0 | C1208003
| 30.4 | O0124002
| 40.0 | O0162021
| 65.0 | E0166008
| 80 | C0084002
| 100 | C0084002
| 135 | C0084002
| 179 | C0084002
| 180.0 | C0152002
40Ca | 16.0 | C0893002
| 40.0 | O02080061
| 45.5 | C0076002
| 61.4 | O0211012
| 65.0 | O0032002S
| 75.0 | O0553010
| 80.0 | T0101002
| 135.0 | T0101002
| 152.0 | O0553004
| 156.0 | O0049004
| 160.0 | T0101002
| 181.5 | T0108005
| 201.4 | C0148006
54Fe | 9.69 | O03930021
| 12.0 | C1024002
| 16.0 | C0893008
| 17.2 | O0091002
| 18.6 | D0286015
| 19.6 | O0079006
| 20.4 | O0091004
| 24.6 | O0091006
| 30.4 | O12430031
| 35.2 | O1198020
| 39.8 | O0456002
| 49.35 | O0788007
| 65.0 | O0032061S
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 182.4 | O0365012
56Fe | 10.93 | -
| 11.7 | -
| 16.0 | C0893010
| 18.6 | D0286016
| 19.1 | O0167006
| 30.3 | O0142005
| 35.2 | O0083016
| 39.8 | O0456003
| 49.35 | O0788006
| 65.0 | E1201002
| 156.0 | O0049006
58Ni | 10.7 | O0446002
| 11.7 | -
| 14.4 | O0446002
| 15.4 | O0446002
| 16.0 | C0893012
| 17.0 | O0262007
| 18.6 | D0286017
| 21.3 | O0434008
| 22.2 | C1019017
| 30.3 | O0142007
| 35.2 | O1198021
| 39.6 | O04360031
| 40.0 | O02080071
| 61.4 | O0211013
| 65.0 | O0032008S
| 100.4 | O0300003
| 160.0 | O0302005
| 178.0 | D0189002
| 192.0 | E1704002
60Ni | 14.4 | O0446003
| 15.4 | O0446003
| 16.0 | C0893014
| 18.6 | D0286018
| 30.3 | O0142008
| 30.8 | O0157002
| 39.6 | O04360021
| 65.0 | O0032063S
90Zr | 9.7 | O03930071
| 12.7 | O03890021
| 14.71 | O0372013
| 16.0 | C0893028
| 18.8 | O0370002
| 22.5 | C0085002
| 30.0 | D0295002
| 40.0 | O02080081
| 49.35 | O0788017
| 61.4 | O0211015
| 65.0 | O0032021S
| 80.0 | T0101003
| 100.4 | O0300004
| 135.0 | T0101003
| 156.0 | O0049009
| 160.0 | T0101003
120Sn | 9.7 | O03930081
| 16.0 | C0893032
| 20.4 | O0169020
| 24.6 | O0169026
| 30.3 | O0142010
| 40.0 | O0328007
| 100.4 | O0300005
| 156.0 | O0049010
| 160.0 | O0479004
208Pb | 16.0 | C0893042
| 21.0 | O0287011
| 24.1 | O0287012
| 26.3 | O0287013
| 30.3 | O0142011
| 35.0 | O0287015
| 40.0 | O02080091
| 45.0 | O0287016
| 47.3 | O0287017
| 49.35 | O0788009
| 61.4 | O0211017
| 65.0 | O0032025S
| 80.0 | T0101004
| 121.0 | T0101004
| 156.0 | O0049012
| 160.0 | O0302002
| 182.0 | T0101004
| 185.0 | O0287002
| 200.0 | C0081005
209Bi | 16.0 | C0893044
| 65.0 | E0773008
| 78.0 | O0553014
| 153.0 | O0553006
| 156.0 | O0049013

### Comments

  * 28Si: The data set listed in the KD corpus as having a scattering energy of 198.1 MeV and being from Olmer et al. (PRC 29 (1984) 361) does not appear in the referenced publication; instead, there are data sets at 179 MeV for elastic scattering and 175 MeV for analyzing powers that are listed in EXFOR for this reference. We used these latter data sets in the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 134.2 MeV and listed in the KD corpus as being from Schwandt et al. (PRC 26 (1982) 55) is instead listed in EXFOR as being from Olmer et al. (PRC 29 (1984) 361). We used this latter reference for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 40Ca: The data sets at 14.5, 18.6 and 21 MeV from Boschitz, Bercaw, and Vincent (Phys. Lett. 13 (1964) 322) were not available in EXFOR and apparently have not been digitized. We omitted these data sets from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 54Fe: The data set at 11 MeV from Beneviste, Mitchel, and Fulmer (Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) B317) listed in the KD corpus as being from 54Fe is actually from 56Fe; it already is referenced under 56Fe in the KD corpus. We included it as being from 56Fe in the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 35.0 MeV from Colombo et al. (J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 44 (1978) 543) was not available in EXFOR; for the KDUQ corpus, we used the EXFOR data set at 35.2 MeV associated with most of the same authors (PRC 21 844 (1980)).

  * 56Fe: The data sets at 17.2, 20.4, and 24.6 listed in the KD corpus as being from J.P.M.G. Melssen’s PhD thesis (Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven, 1978) are instead listed in EXFOR as being from Van Hall et al. (NP/A 291 63 (1977)); we used this latter reference and its data sets for the KDUQ corpus. The data set listed in the KD corpus as having a scattering energy of 15.3 MeV was not available in the listed Van Hall et al. reference; as such, we omitted it from the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 14.5 MeV from Rosen et al. (Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 34 (1965) 96) was not available in EXFOR; for the KDUQ corpus, we used the data set at 14.0 MeV from Rosen et al. (PRL 10 246 (1963)) from EXFOR. We were unable to locate the data sets at 10.93 and 11.7 in EXFOR. For these data we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: Benveniste, Mitchell, and Fulmer (Phys. Rev. 133 B317).

  * 58Ni: The data set listed in the KD corpus as having a scattering energy of 17.8 MeV from Payton and Schrank (PR 101 1358 (1956)) was apparently collected at 17.0 MeV, per the original publication and EXFOR. We used the latter energy in the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 35.2 MeV listed in the KD corpus as being from Eliyakut-Roshko et al. (PRC 51 1295 (1995)) is apparently from Fabrici et al. (PRC 21 844 (1980)) and is available in EXFOR; we used the latter reference and EXFOR data sets for the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 200 MeV from Sakaguchi et al. (RCNP Annual Report, 1993, p.4) was not available in EXFOR; for the KDUQ corpus, we used EXFOR data at 192 MeV from Sakaguchi et al. (PRC 57 1749 (1998)). We were unable to locate the data set 11.7 in EXFOR. For these data we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: Benveniste, Mitchell, and Fulmer (Phys. Rev. 133 B317).

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ni: The data set listed in the KD corpus as having scattering energy of 17 MeV and being from Devins et al. (Nucl. Phys. 35 (1962) 617) was apparently actually collected at a scattering energy of 30.8 MeV, and using a 60Ni target. For the KDUQ corpus, we assigned this latter energy and target to this data set.

  * 60Ni: The data set at 40 MeV from Blumberg et al. (PR 147 812 (1966)) listed in the KD corpus as being from 60Ni are actually from 58Ni; we assigned it to 58Ni for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 90Zr: The data sets listed in the KD corpus as having scattering energies of 12.7 and 14.7 do not appear in Greenlees et al. (PRC 3 1231 (1971)); for the KDUQ corpus, we used the data set at 12.7 MeV from Dickens et al. (PR 168 1355 (1968)) and at 14.7 MeV from Matsuda et al. (JPJ 22 1311 (1967)), as listed in EXFOR. The data set at 180 MeV from Nadasen et al. (PRC 23 1023 (1981)) is not available on EXFOR, only in a difficult-to-parse figure from the original paper. As such, we omitted this dataset from the KDUQ corpus.

  * 208Pb: The data sets at 11, 12, and 13 MeV from Kretschmer et al. (PLB 87 343 (1979)) are not available in EXFOR, only in a difficult-to-parse figure in the original paper. As such, we omitted these data sets from the KDUQ corpus. The data set at 100 MeV doesn’t appear to originate from Nadasen et al. (PRC 23 (1981) 1023); there is a data set at 98 MeV from a related publication Schwandt et al. (PRC 26 55 (1982)) for analyzing powers. We included the latter data set in the KDUQ corpus.

  * 209Bi: The data set at 57 MeV from Yamabe et al. (JPJ 17 729 (1962)) does not include errors; we omitted it from the KDUQ corpus.

### Proton analyzing powers

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
28Si | 17.8 | O0254003
| 65 | E0166009
| 80 | C0084003
| 100 | C0084003
| 135 | C0084003
| 175 | C0084003
| 180 | C0152004
40Ca | 16 | C0893003
| 26.3 | O0490006
| 30.05 | O0490003
| 40 | O02080062
| 45.5 | C0076003
| 65 | E0166013
| 75 | O0553011
| 80.2 | T0108004
| 152 | O0553005
| 181.5 | T0108004
| 201.4 | C0148008
54Fe | 9.69 | O03930022
| 16 | C0893009
| 17.2 | O0091003
| 18.6 | D0286005
| 20.4 | O0091005
| 24.6 | O0091007
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 155 | O0218002
| 179 | D0285008
56Fe | 14 | C1100005
| 17.2 | O0091009
| 18.6 | D0286006
| 20.4 | O0091011
| 24.6 | O0091013
| 65 | E1201003
58Ni | 18.6 | D0286007
| 20.4 | O0091015
| 20.9 | O0434009
| 24.6 | O0091017
| 30.04 | O0490004
| 40 | O02080072
| 65 | E1201007
| 178 | D0189003
| 192 | E1704005
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ni | 155 | O0218003
60Ni | 20.4 | O0091019
| 24.6 | O0091021
| 65 | E1201009
90Zr | 9.7 | O03930072
| 20.25 | O0392007
| 30 | D0295003
| 40 | O02080082
120Sn | 9.7 | O03930082
| 20.4 | O0169021
| 24.6 | O0169027
| 40 | O0328011
208Pb | 26.3 | O0490008
| 40 | O02080092
| 49.35 | O0788025
| 65 | E1201015
| 79.8 | T0108010
| 98 | T0108010
| 182 | T0108010
| 200 | C0081006

### Comments

No discrepancies were identified between the KD and KDUQ corpora for proton
analyzing powers. For related information, see the Comments for proton
differential elastic cross sections above (note that the formatting of the
original KD corpus did not explicitly distinguish between inclusion of
differential elastic cross section data sets and analyzing power data sets).

### Proton reaction cross sections

Isotope | Energy | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
27Al | 8.87-10.39 | D0314002
| 8.8 | D0535002
| 9.89 | C1042003
| 9.9-10.12 | O0741004
| 16.29 | O0368004
| 24.8-46.3 | O0325003
| 29 | O0369003
| 34 | O0732003
| 40-60.8 | O0081008
| 61 | O0475003
| 77-133 | C1211003
| 99.7 | O0340006
| 134 | O1947003
| 179.6 | D0533005
| 185 | -
| 234 | O0213004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Si | 20.7-38.1 | C1862005
| 24.7-47.8 | O0325006
| 65.5 | O0579005
40Ca | 10.34-21.59 | O0341003
| 24.9-48 | O0330003
| 28.5 | O0150002
| 65.5 | O0579006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca | 99.3 | O0340007
| 179.6 | D0533006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 8.8 | D0535004
| 9.21-11.25 | D0314003
| 9.89 | C1042006
| 9.97-10.2 | O0741013
| 15.8 | C1864004
| 28 | C1212007
| 34 | O0732004
| 61 | O0475004
| 98.7 | O0340011
| 179.6 | D0533007
| 230 | O0213005
56Fe | 14.5 | C1217004
| 20.8-47.8 | T0100004
| 28.5 | O0150003
| 40-60.8 | O0081013
63Cu | 6.75 | -
| 8.7 | D0535009
| 9.1 | D0534004
| 9.11-11.18 | D0314010
| 9.85 | -
| 9.89 | C1042009
| 14.5 | C1217010
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu | 8.78-11.21 | D0337003
| 8.8 | D0535008
| 8.9 | C0067002
| 9.05 | D0534006
| 9.3 | O1948003
| 9.9-10.12 | O0741006
| 15.8 | C1864003
| 16.37 | O0368006
| 28 | C1212016
| 77-133 | C1211004
| 99 | O0340014
| 134 | O1947004
| 185 | -
| 225 | O0213006
90Zr | 14.5 | C1217014
| 30-60.8 | O0081004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Zr | 9.2 | D0534007
| 10.03-10.25 | O0741016
| 98.8 | O0340016
${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn | 9.99-10.21 | O0741015
| 34 | O0732005
| 61 | O0475005
| 99.1 | O0340023
| 221 | O0213009
120Sn | 14.5 | C1217022
| 22.8-47.9 | C0424006
| 28.5 | O0150007
| 30-49.5 | O0081005
| 65.5 | O0579012
${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb | 9.92 | O0741019
| 16.31 | O0368007
| 34 | O0732006
| 61 | O0475006
| 77-133 | C1211006
| 99.2 | O0340040
| 134 | O1947006
| 185 | -
| 226 | O0213010
208Pb | 21.1-48 | O0330004
| 28.5 | O0150008
| 30-60.8 | O0081007
| 65.5 | O0579014

### Comments

  * 27Al: we were unable to locate the datum at 185 in EXFOR. For this datum we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: Millburn et al. (Phys. Rev. 95 1268 (1954)).

  * 40Ca: the data from 99.3 and 179.6 listed as being for 40Ca in the KD corpus are actually from ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 56Fe: many of the data listed as being for 56Fe in the KD Corpus are actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 63Cu: many of the data listed as being for 63Cu in the KD Corpus are actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu for the KDUQ corpus. We were unable to locate the data at 6.75 and 9.85 in EXFOR. For these data we used the same references as listed in the KD corpus: Dell, Ploughe, and Hausman (Nucl. Phys. 64 (1965) p. 513), and Albert and Hansen (PRL 6 (1961) p. 13), respectively.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu: we were unable to locate the datum at 185 in EXFOR. For this datum we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: Millburn et al. (Phys. Rev. 95 1268 (1954)).

  * 90Zr: several of the data listed as being for 90Zr in the KD Corpus are actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Zr; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Zr for the KDUQ corpus.

  * 120Sn: several of the data listed as being for 120Sn in the KD Corpus are actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn for the KDUQ corpus.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb: we were unable to locate the datum at 185 in EXFOR. For this datum we used the same reference as listed in the KD corpus: Millburn et al. (Phys. Rev. 95 1268 (1954)).

  * 208Pb: several of the data listed as being for 208Pb in the KD Corpus are actually for ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb; we assigned them to ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb for the KDUQ corpus.

## CHUQ corpus

### Neutron differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc. #
---|---|---
40Ca | 13.905 | 12996002
| 16.916 | 12996002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca | 11.01 | 10633005
51V | 11.01 | 10633006
54Fe | 9.94 | 10958002
| 11.0 | 12862002
| 13.92 | 10958002
| 20.0 | 12862002
| 22.0 | 12862002
| 24.0 | 12862002
| 26.0 | 12862002
55Mn | 11.01 | 10633007
56Fe | 11.0 | 12862003
| 20.0 | 12862003
| 26.0 | 12862003
58Ni | 9.958 | 12930002
| 13.941 | 12930002
59Co | 11.01 | 10633009
60Ni | 9.958 | 12930004
| 13.941 | 12930004
65Cu | 9.94 | 10958008
| 13.92 | 10958008
88Sr | 11.0 | 10729004
89Y | 11.0 | 12774002
| 11.0 | 12790002
90Zr | 11.0 | 10729002
92Mo | 11.0 | 10729007
| 11.0 | 10867002
| 11.01 | 10633012
| 20.0 | 10867002
| 26.0 | 10867002
93Nb | 11.01 | 10633011
96Mo | 11.0 | 10867003
| 11.01 | 10633013
| 20.0 | 10867003
| 26.0 | 10867003
98Mo | 11.0 | 10867004
| 11.01 | 10633014
| 20.0 | 10867004
| 26.0 | 10867004
100Mo | 11.0 | 10867005
| 11.01 | 10633015
| 20.0 | 10867005
| 26.0 | 10867005
116Sn | 9.945 | 13158005
| 11.0 | 10817006
| 13.925 | 13158005
| 24.0 | 10817006
118Sn | 11.0 | 10817007
| 24.0 | 10817007
120Sn | 9.943 | 13158007
| 11.0 | 10817008
| 11.01 | 10633017
| 13.923 | 13158007
| 16.905 | 13158007
122Sn | 11.0 | 10817009
124Sn | 11.0 | 10817010
| 24.0 | 10817010
165Hg | 11.01 | 10633018
206Pb | 11.01 | 10633020
208Pb | 11.0 | 10871002
| 13.9 | 13685002
| 16.9 | 13685002
| 20.0 | 10871002
| 26.0 | 10871002
209Bi | 11.01 | 10633022

### Comments

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca, 51V, 55Mn, 59Co, 93Nb, 92Mo, 96Mo, 98Mo, 100Mo, 120Sn, 165Hg, 206Pb, 209Bi: as listed in EXFOR, the data sets for these nuclei from the publication of Ferrer et al. (Nucl. Phys. A 275, p. 325 (1977)) had both a DATA-ERR1 column containing a partial error in absolute units, and a DATA-ERR2 column containing a separate partial error in percent. It was unclear (to us) the relationship between these sources of error, and we were unable to determine how these data sets were treated in the canonical CH89 fit. For these data sets, we converted the percent error to absolute units and summed both sources of partial error in quadrature to yield an overall error, which was then used in the CHUQ corpus.

  * 118Sn: For the data sets at 11 and 24 Rapaport et al. (Nucl. Phys. A 341 p. 56 (1980)) listed on EXFOR, a “null” value was listed in the DATA-ERR column; we elected to use the following column ERR-T, which listed a 5% relative uncertainty for all data points, for the error of these data in the CHUQ corpus.

  * 54Fe, 56Fe: For the data sets at 11, 20, 22, 24, and 26 by Mellema et al. (Phys. Rev. C 28 p. 2267 (1983)) listed in EXFOR, the first and second DATA-ERR columns listed errors in percent and in absolute units, respectively. The first column contained mostly “null” values. To combine the data from both columns for use in the CHUQ corpus, we converted the percent errors that did exist in the first DATA-ERR column into absolute units, then merged the two columns into one absolute DATA-ERR column.

### Neutron analyzing powers

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc. #
---|---|---
40Ca | 10.935 | 12996004
| 13.904 | 12996004
| 16.923 | 12996004
58Ni | 9.92 | 12930010
| 13.91 | 12930010
116Sn | 9.907 | 13158002
| 13.894 | 13158002
120Sn | 9.906 | 13158003
| 13.894 | 13158003
208Pb | 9.97 | 12844007
| 13.9 | 12844007

### Comments

  * 64Ni: In the data set at 65 by Sakaguchi et al. (Memoirs Faculty of Sci., Kyoto Univ. Ser. Phys. 36 p.305 (1983)) as listed in EXFOR, the first datum possessed an unphysical error of 3.0034 (the analyzing power can only assume a value between -1 and 1). As this is likely a transcription or tabulation error, for the CHUQ corpus we changed this to 0.0034, which is consistent with the other listed errors from this data set.

### Proton differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc. #
---|---|---
40Ca | 40.0 | O0328003
| 65.0 | O0032002S
44Ca | 65.0 | O0032056S
46Ti | 65.0 | O0032058S
48Ca | 65.0 | O0032057S
48Ti | 16.0 | C0893004
| 65.0 | O0032059S
50Ti | 16.0 | C0893006
| 65.0 | O0032060S
54Fe | 16.0 | C0893008
| 17.2 | O0091002
| 20.4 | O0091004
| 24.6 | O0091006
| 40.0 | O0162023
| 65.0 | O0032061S
56Fe | 17.2 | O0091008
| 20.4 | O0091010
| 24.6 | O0091012
| 65.0 | O0032062S
58Ni | 16.0 | C0893012
| 20.4 | O0091014
| 24.6 | O0091016
| 40.0 | O0162025
| 65.0 | O0032008S
59Co | 40.0 | O0328004
| 65.0 | O0032015S
60Ni | 16.0 | C0893014
| 20.4 | O0091018
| 24.6 | O0091020
| 40.0 | O0162027
| 65.0 | O0032063S
62Ni | 20.4 | O0091022
| 24.6 | O0091024
| 65.0 | O0032064S
63Cu | 16.0 | C0893016
64Ni | 20.4 | O0169004
| 65.0 | O0032065S
64Zn | 20.4 | O1109002
65Cu | 16.0 | C0893018
66Zn | 20.4 | O1109004
68Zn | 20.4 | O1109006
| 40.0 | O0328005
70Zn | 20.4 | O1109008
72Ge | 22.3 | O1103004
74Ge | 22.3 | O1103006
76Se | 16.0 | C0893020
78Se | 16.0 | C0893022
| 22.3 | O1103012
80Se | 16.0 | C0893024
| 22.3 | O1103014
82Se | 16.0 | C0893026
86Sr | 24.6 | O0169006
88Sr | 24.6 | O0169008
89Y | 65.0 | O0032066S
90Zr | 16.0 | C0893028
| 40.0 | O0328006
| 65.0 | O0032021S
98Mo | 65.0 | O0032067S
100Mo | 65.0 | O0032068S
106Cd | 22.3 | O1104002
108Cd | 22.3 | O1104004
110Cd | 20.4 | O0169010
| 22.3 | O1104006
112Cd | 20.4 | O0169012
| 22.3 | O1104008
114Cd | 20.4 | O0169014
| 22.3 | O1104010
116Cd | 22.3 | O1104012
116Sn | 16.0 | C0893030
| 20.4 | O0169016
118Sn | 20.4 | O0169018
120Sn | 16.0 | C0893032
| 20.4 | O0169020
| 24.6 | O0169026
| 40.0 | O0328007
122Sn | 20.4 | O0169022
124Sn | 16.0 | C0893034
| 20.4 | O0169024
134Ba | 16.0 | C0893036
136Ba | 16.0 | C0893038
138Ba | 16.0 | C0893040
144Sm | 65.0 | O0032069S
208Pb | 40.0 | O0328008
| 65.0 | O0032025S
209Bi | 65.0 | O0032070S

### Comments

  * 134Ba, 136Ba: the data sets for these nuclei from Varner, PhD thesis (1986) are listed in the CH89 Corpus as being from 132Ba and 134Ba, but instead listed in EXFOR as being from 134Ba and 136Ba. As 132Ba is 0.1% naturally abundant, it is highly unlikely this was actually used as a target. For the CHUQ corpus, we assigned the data sets to 134Ba and 136Ba, respectively.

  * 58Ni: we were unable to locate the data set listed in the CH89 corpus as having a scattering energy of 27.2 . This scattering energy was not reported (to our knowledge) in any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 98Mo: in the data set from Sakaguchi et al. (Memoirs Faculty of Sci., Kyoto Univ. Ser. Phys. 36 p.305 (1983)), the cross section value recorded in EXFOR at an angle of 58.03 degrees is anomalously lower than the adjacent cross sections reported at 55.52 and 60.54 degrees, possibly due to a tabulation error. For the CHUQ corpus we retained the anomalous value.

  * 142Nd: we were unable to locate the data set listed in the CH89 corpus with a scattering energy of 17.2 . To our knowledge, no data for proton scattering on 142Nd are available in EXFOR, nor is 142Nd listed as a target under any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 148Sm, 150Sm: we were unable to locate the data sets listed in the CH89 corpus with a scattering energy of 20.4 . To our knowledge, no data for proton scattering on Sm isotopes at or around 20 MeV are available in EXFOR, nor are any Sm isotopes listed as a target under any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 40Ca, 54Fe, 58Ni, 60Ni, 59Co, 68Zn, 90Zr, 120Sn, 208Pb: as listed in EXFOR, the data sets for these nuclei, associated with two publications by Fricke et al. (Phys. Rev. 163 p.1153 (1967); Phys. Rev. 156 p.1207 (1967)) have mostly null values in the ERR-T column. It was unclear to us how to combine or assess the few given ERR-T data with the error data in the other provided error columns. As such, we ignored the ERR-T column in these cases and took the DATA-ERR column for the total error.

### Proton analyzing powers

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc. #
---|---|---
40Ca | 65.0 | O0032002A
44Ca | 65.0 | O0032056A
46Ti | 65.0 | O0032058A
48Ca | 65.0 | O0032057A
48Ti | 16.0 | C0893005
| 65.0 | O0032059A
50Ti | 16.0 | C0893007
| 65.0 | O0032060A
54Fe | 16.0 | C0893009
| 17.2 | O0091003
| 20.4 | O0091005
| 24.6 | O0091007
| 40.0 | O0162024
| 65.0 | O0032061A
56Fe | 17.2 | O0091009
| 20.4 | O0091011
| 24.6 | O0091013
| 65.0 | O0032062A
58Ni | 16.0 | C0893013
| 20.4 | O0091015
| 24.6 | O0091017
| 40.0 | O0162026
| 65.0 | O0032008A
59Co | 40.0 | O0328009
| 65.0 | O0032015A
60Ni | 16.0 | C0893015
| 20.4 | O0091019
| 24.6 | O0091021
| 40.0 | O0162028
| 65.0 | O0032063A
62Ni | 20.4 | O0091023
| 24.6 | O0091025
| 65.0 | O0032064A
63Cu | 16.0 | C0893017
64Ni | 20.4 | O0169005
| 65.0 | O0032065A
64Zn | 20.4 | O1109003
65Cu | 16.0 | C0893019
66Zn | 20.4 | O1109005
68Zn | 20.4 | O1109007
| 40.0 | O0328010
70Zn | 20.4 | O1109009
72Ge | 22.3 | O1103005
74Ge | 22.3 | O1103007
76Se | 16.0 | C0893021
78Se | 16.0 | C0893023
| 22.3 | O1103013
80Se | 16.0 | C0893025
| 22.3 | O1103015
82Se | 16.0 | C0893027
86Sr | 24.6 | O0169007
88Sr | 24.6 | O0169009
89Y | 65.0 | O0032066A
90Zr | 16.0 | C0893029
| 65.0 | O0032021A
98Mo | 65.0 | O0032067A
100Mo | 65.0 | O0032068A
106Cd | 22.3 | O1104003
108Cd | 22.3 | O1104005
110Cd | 20.4 | O0169011
| 22.3 | O1104007
112Cd | 20.4 | O0169013
| 22.3 | O1104009
114Cd | 20.4 | O0169015
| 22.3 | O1104011
116Cd | 22.3 | O1104013
116Sn | 16.0 | C0893031
| 20.4 | O0169017
118Sn | 20.4 | O0169019
120Sn | 16.0 | C0893033
| 20.4 | O0169021
| 24.6 | O0169027
| 40.0 | O0328011
122Sn | 20.4 | O0169023
124Sn | 16.0 | C0893035
| 20.4 | O0169025
134Ba | 16.0 | C0893037
136Ba | 16.0 | C0893039
138Ba | 16.0 | C0893041
144Sm | 65.0 | O0032069A
208Pb | 65.0 | O0032025A
209Bi | 65.0 | O0032070A

### Comments

  * 134Ba, 136Ba: the data sets for these nuclei from Varner, PhD thesis (1986) are listed in the CH89 Corpus as being from 132Ba and 134Ba, but instead listed in EXFOR as being from 134Ba and 136Ba. As 132Ba is 0.1% naturally abundant, it is highly unlikely this was actually used as a target. For the CHUQ corpus, we assigned the data sets to 134Ba and 136Ba, respectively.

  * 58Ni: we were unable to locate the data set listed in the CH89 corpus with a scattering energy of 27.2 . This scattering energy was not reported (to our knowledge) in any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 142Nd: we were unable to locate the data set listed in the CH89 corpus with a scattering energy of 17.2 . To our knowledge, no data for proton scattering on 142Nd are available in EXFOR, nor is 142Nd listed as a target under any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 148Sm, 150Sm: we were unable to locate the data sets listed in the CH89 corpus with a scattering energy of 20.4 . To our knowledge, no data for proton scattering on Sm isotopes at or around 20 MeV are available in EXFOR, nor are any Sm isotopes listed as a target under any of the references cited in the CH89 corpus for the Eindhoven (p,p) scattering data sets.

  * 54Fe, 58Ni, 60Ni, 64Ni, 59Co, 64Zn, 66Zn, 68Zn, 70Zn, 72Ge, 74Ge, 78Se, 80Se, 86Sr, 88Sr, 110Cd, 112Cd, 114Cd, 116Sn, 118Sn, 120Sn, 122Sn, 124Sn: as listed in EXFOR, the data sets for these nuclei, associated with two publications by Fricke et al. (Phys. Rev. 163 p.1153 (1967); Phys. Rev. 156 p.1207 (1967)), one publication by Moonen et al. (J. Phys. G 19, p.635 (1993)), and one publication by Wassenaar et al. (J. Phys. G 15, p.181 (1989)) have mostly (or many) null values in the ERR-T column. It was unclear to us how to combine or assess the given ERR-T data with the error data in the other provided error columns. As such, we ignored the ERR-T column in these cases and took the DATA-ERR column for the total error.

## Test corpus

### Neutron differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
27Al | 15.431 | 13903002
28Si | 15.43 | 14345002
| 18.9 | 14345002
32S | 7.96 | 14345004
| 9.95 | 14345004
| 11.93 | 14345004
| 13.92 | 14345004
| 15.44 | 14345004
| 16.92 | 14345004
| 18.9 | 14345004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ar | 6.0 | 14371004
40Ca | 11.9 | 14303002
| 16.9 | 14303003
| 65.0 | 13946003
| 75.0 | 13946003
| 85.0 | 13946003
| 95.0 | 13946003
| 107.5 | 13946003
| 127.5 | 13946003
| 155.0 | 13946003
| 185.0 | 13946003
| 225.0 | 13946003
48Ca | 11.9 | 14303004
| 16.8 | 14303005
54Fe | 2.0 | 14451008
| 2.25 | 14451008
| 2.5 | 14451008
| 2.75 | 14451008
| 3.0 | 14451008
| 3.5 | 14451008
| 4.0 | 14451008
| 5.0 | 14451008
| 6.0 | 14451008
${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe | 1.75 | 14451003
| 8.17 | 32673002
56Fe | 1.3 | 14462002
| 1.5 | 14462002
| 1.8 | 14462002
| 2.0 | 14462002
| 2.25 | 14462002
| 2.5 | 14462002
| 2.75 | 14462002
| 3.0 | 14462002
| 3.5 | 14462002
| 4.0 | 14462002
| 4.5 | 14462002
| 4.9 | 14462002
| 5.94 | 14462002
| 6.96 | 14462002
| 7.96 | 14462002
| 96.0 | 22987002
| 96.0 | 22987005
| 96.0 | 23059003
59Co | 9.953 | 13903004
| 11.944 | 13903004
| 15.425 | 13903004
| 16.879 | 13903004
| 18.862 | 13903004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Cu | 6.95 | 22974002
| 8.07 | 22974002
| 8.96 | 22974002
| 9.9 | 22974002
| 10.86 | 22974002
| 11.9 | 22974002
| 12.93 | 22974002
| 14.18 | 22974002
89Y | 96.0 | 22987003
112Sn | 11.0 | 14662002
| 17.0 | 14662003
124Sn | 11.0 | 14662004
| 17.0 | 14662005
${}^{\text{nat}}$Gd | 0.334 | 13894002
| 0.456 | 13894002
| 0.55 | 13894002
| 0.649 | 13894002
| 0.785 | 13894002
| 0.919 | 13894002
| 1.08 | 13894002
| 1.264 | 13894002
| 1.432 | 13894002
| 4.51 | 13894004
| 5.01 | 13894004
| 5.51 | 13894004
| 5.91 | 13894004
| 6.51 | 13894004
| 7.14 | 13894004
| 7.51 | 13894004
| 8.03 | 13894004
| 8.41 | 13894004
| 9.06 | 13894004
| 9.51 | 13894004
| 9.99 | 13894004
181Ta | 0.323 | 13965002
| 0.37 | 13965002
| 0.414 | 13965002
| 0.469 | 13965002
| 0.522 | 13965002
| 0.568 | 13965002
| 0.615 | 13965002
| 0.666 | 13965002
| 0.719 | 13965002
| 0.767 | 13965002
| 0.815 | 13965002
| 0.867 | 13965002
| 0.911 | 13965002
| 0.967 | 13965002
| 1.015 | 13965002
| 1.068 | 13965002
| 1.11 | 13965002
| 1.163 | 13965002
| 1.213 | 13965002
| 1.261 | 13965002
| 1.309 | 13965002
| 1.359 | 13965002
| 1.415 | 13965002
| 1.465 | 13965002
| 4.51 | 13965002
| 5.01 | 13965002
| 5.51 | 13965002
| 5.91 | 13965002
| 6.51 | 13965002
| 7.14 | 13965002
| 7.51 | 13965002
| 8.03 | 13965002
| 8.41 | 13965002
| 9.06 | 13965002
| 9.51 | 13965002
| 9.99 | 13965002
${}^{\text{nat}}$W | 7.19 | 22962002
| 8.08 | 22962002
| 9.08 | 22962002
| 10.11 | 22962002
| 11.04 | 22962002
| 12.12 | 22962002
| 13.1 | 22962002
| 14.1 | 22962002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Re | 0.352 | 13878002
| 0.446 | 13878002
| 0.544 | 13878002
| 0.643 | 13878002
| 0.748 | 13878002
| 0.846 | 13878002
| 0.944 | 13878002
| 1.034 | 13878002
| 1.144 | 13878002
| 1.241 | 13878002
| 1.345 | 13878002
| 1.44 | 13878002
| 4.51 | 13878004
| 5.01 | 13878004
| 5.51 | 13878004
| 5.91 | 13878004
| 6.51 | 13878004
| 7.14 | 13878004
| 7.51 | 13878004
| 8.03 | 13878004
| 8.41 | 13878004
| 9.06 | 13878004
| 9.51 | 13878004
| 9.99 | 13878004
197Au | 4.51 | 14033002
| 5.01 | 14033002
| 5.51 | 14033002
| 5.91 | 14033002
| 6.51 | 14033002
| 7.14 | 14033002
| 7.51 | 14033002
| 8.03 | 14033002
| 8.41 | 14033002
| 9.06 | 14033002
| 9.51 | 14033002
| 9.99 | 14033002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb | 2.24 | 23156002
| 2.71 | 23156003
| 2.9 | 31687002
| 2.94 | 23156004
| 3.0 | 31687002
| 3.1 | 31687002
| 3.2 | 31687002
| 3.4 | 31687002
| 4.02 | 23156005
208Pb | 30.4 | 14317002
| 40.0 | 14317003
| 65.0 | 13946004
| 75.0 | 13946004
| 85.0 | 13946004
| 95.0 | 13946004
| 96.0 | 22987004
| 96.0 | 22987007
| 96.0 | 23059002
| 107.5 | 13946004
| 127.5 | 13946004
| 155.0 | 13946004
| 185.0 | 13946004
| 225.0 | 13946004
209Bi | 3.99 | 23156006

### Comments

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe: We did not include the data set of E. Pirovano et al. (Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024601), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * 54Fe: We reduced the cross section values and reported errors of J. R. Vanhoy et al. (Nucl. Phys. A 972 (2018) 107) by a factor of 1000; the data as listed in EXFOR appear to be 1000 too small, possible due to a units mismatch.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$W: We combined the data set of 0-degree elastic scattering of Schmidt et al. (EXFOR Acc. No. 22962024) with the non-0-degree elastic scattering data at the same energies by the same authors (EXFOR Acc. No. 22962002), to avoid duplicate calculations/figures of these data while using the Test corpus.

  * 89Y: We combined the data set of 0-degree elastic scattering of Oehrn et al. (EXFOR Acc. No. 22987006) with the non-0-degree elastic scattering data at the same energies by the same authors (EXFOR Acc. No. 22987003), to avoid duplicate calculations/figures of these data while using the Test corpus.

### Neutron analyzing powers

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
27Al | 15.425 | 13903003
28Si | 15.4 | 14345003
| 18.6 | 14345003
32S | 9.9 | 14345005
| 13.9 | 14345005
| 15.4 | 14345005
| 16.9 | 14345005
59Co | 15.273 | 13903005

### Comments

No special cases were encountered in assembling neutron analyzing powers for
the Test corpus.

### Neutron total cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
${}^{\text{nat}}$S | 14.1 | 31807004
40Ca | 12.04-276.13 | 14269004
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ti | 0.4-24.75 | 14576004
| 0.401-24.69 | 14576005
48Ca | 12.04-276.13 | 14269003
58Ni | 2.505-290.209 | 14661007
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ni | 2.505-290.209 | 14661008
64Ni | 2.505-290.209 | 14661006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Zr | 0.4-24.74 | 14576008
| 0.4-24.74 | 14576009
103Rh | 2.505-290.209 | 14661005
112Sn | 3.006-299.233 | 14661004
${}^{\text{nat}}$In | 14.1 | 31807005
${}^{\text{nat}}$Sn | 3.006-299.233 | 14661002
124Sn | 3.006-299.233 | 14661003
${}^{\text{nat}}$Te | 14.1 | 31807006
${}^{\text{nat}}$Ta | 0.2-9.121 | 23199004
| 0.732-1.853 | 30831002
181Ta | 0.4-24.72 | 14576002
| 0.4-24.72 | 14576003
182W | 5.48-299.34 | 13887002
184W | 5.48-299.34 | 13887003
186W | 5.48-299.34 | 13887004
197Au | 0.2-9.121 | 23199002
204Pb | 26.993-26.993 | 13907002
${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb | 2.505-290.209 | 14661015
| 14.1 | 31807007
209Bi | 0.682 | 30831003

### Comments

  * 40Ar: We did not include the data set of B. Bhandari et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 042502) because the very large reported energy uncertainties made the data unsuitable for comparison against OMP predictions. For example, the reported scattering energy uncertainty for one cross section datum was approximately $\pm$50 .

  * 197Au, ${}^{\text{nat}}$W, ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe: We did not include the data sets of R. Beyer et al. (Eur. Phys. J. A 54 (2018) 81), as the scattering energies used were only up to 8 , making the data only marginally useful for comparison against an optical potential.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Fe: We did not include the data set of G. D. Kim et al. (J. Rad. and Nucl. Chem.271 (2007) 541), as the scattering energies used were from 1.1 to 2 , making the data only marginally useful for comparison against an optical potential.

  * 127I: We did not include the data set of G. Noguere et al. (Priv. Comm: Noguere (2005)), as the scattering energies used were from a few keV to less than 2 , making the data only marginally useful for comparison against an optical potential.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Pb: We did not include the data set of A. B. Laptev (Thesis: Laptev (2004)); the data appear not to have been corrected for dead time and are inconsistent with many other measurements of the same quantity.

### Proton differential elastic cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
24Mg | 7.4 | F1277002
58Ni | 172.0 | D0350003
| 250.0 | E2042003
64Zn | 24.0 | O2165003
116Sn | 295.0 | E2098002
118Sn | 295.0 | E2098003
120Sn | 200.0 | E2042007
| 250.0 | E2042010
| 295.0 | E2098004
| 300.0 | E2042012
122Sn | 295.0 | E2098005
124Sn | 295.0 | E2098006

### Comments

  * 27Al: we did not include the data sets of Zdravko Siketic et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 261 (2007) 414) and K. Shahzad et al. (Nucl. Sci. Techn. (Shanghai) 27 (2016) 33), as they included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy. We also did not include the data set of S. T. Pittman et al. (Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 065804), as it had arbitrary (non-normalized) units.

  * 44Ca: we did not include the data set of S. J. Lokitz et al. (Phys. Lett. B, 599, (2004) 223), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$K: we did not include the data set of M. Kokkoris et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 268 (2010) 1797), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Mg: we did not include the data set of Xiaodong Zhang et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 201 (2003) 551), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * 58Ni, 204Pb, 206Pb, 208Pb: we did not include the data sets of J. Zenihiro et al. (Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 044611), as they had no associated cross section errors.

  * 45Sc: we did not include the data set of G. Provatas et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 269 (2011) 2994), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Si: we did not include the data set of L. Csedreki et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 443 (2019) 48), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy. We did not include the data sets of Becker (Private communication (2008)), as these elastic scattering data are dominated by resonances, making them categorically distinct from the other cross section and analyzing power data considered in this work.

  * 116Sn: There were several null values in the data set of S. Terashima et al. (Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 024317) for the “flag” column in the EXFOR data file; we mapped these to zero, to silence the parsing error into JSON, and included the full data set for analysis.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ti: There were several null values in the data set of P. Hu et al. (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 217 (2004) 551) for the “flag” column in the EXFOR data file; we mapped these to zero, to silence the parsing error into JSON, and included the full data set for analysis.

  * ${}^{\text{nat}}$V: We did not include the data set of X. Zhang et al. (J. Rad. Nucl. Chem. 266, (2005) 149), as it included over 100 scattering energies but only a few angles for each energy.

  * 52Cr: We did not include the data set of K. G. Leach et al. (Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 014320); the data as listed in EXFOR are likely subject to a tabulation error and do not correspond with the values in the referenced publication.

  * 64Zn: We reduced the cross section values and reported errors of K. G. Leach et al. (Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 014320) by a factor of 1000; the data as listed in EXFOR appear to be a factor of 1000 too large, possibly due to a units mismatch.

### Proton analyzing powers

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
58Ni | 172.0 | D0350004
| 250.0 | E2042004
| 295.0 | E2291009
116Sn | 295.0 | E2098007
118Sn | 295.0 | E2098008
120Sn | 200.0 | E2042008
| 250.0 | E2042011
| 295.0 | E2098009
| 300.0 | E2042013
122Sn | 295.0 | E2098010
124Sn | 295.0 | E2098011
204Pb | 295.0 | E2291006
206Pb | 295.0 | E2291007
208Pb | 295.0 | E2291008

### Comments

No special cases were encountered in assembling proton analyzing powers for
the Test corpus.

### Proton reaction cross sections

Isotope | Energies | EXFOR Acc.
---|---|---
40Ca | 81.0-180.0 | D0356003
58Ni | 81.0 | D0356004
90Zr | 81.0-180.0 | D0356005
208Pb | 81.0-180.0 | D0356006

### Comments

No special cases were encountered in assembling proton reaction cross sections
for the Test corpus.

## Supplemental Material C: OMP performance against experimental data

This section details how to interpret the attached figures comparing the CH89
and KD OMPs and their UQ counterparts CHUQ and KDUQ against the experimental
training corpora and the Test corpus. All figures are included in the file
supplement_performance.tar. Figures showing performance of the CH89/CHUQ and
KD/KDUQ OMPs against their respective training data appear in directories
CHUQCorpus and KDUQCorpus, respectively. Figures showing performance of the
CH89/CHUQ and KD/KDUQ OMPs against the Test corpus appear in the TestCorpus
directory, within which there are two subdirectories CHUQ and KDUQ containing
figures for these OMPs. Within each of these directories, figures for each
target nucleus are organized into separate subdirectories, inside of which the
figures are listed by data type and projectile. For example, after expanding
the tar file supplement_performance.tar, the user could locate a figure
comparing the CH89 and CHUQ OMPs against the CHUQ corpus ${}^{\text{nat}}$Ca
neutron elastic cross section data at CHUQCorpus/ca0/ECS_n.pdf. The data
plotted in the figures correspond to the data tabulated in Supplemental
Material A.

To eliminate the need for separate captions for each figure, a consistent
format is applied for all figures of each sector of experimental data. Each
figure displays experimental data and predictions only for a single data type
for a given nucleus and projectile. Differential data (proton and neutron
elastic cross sections and analyzing powers) are plotted in columns within
each figure, with up to five scattering energies shown in a single column. The
scattering energy for each experimental data set (and the corresponding OMP
predictions) is listed in immediately above the lowest-angle cross section
data. For legibility, data sets at different energies are offset by a factor
of 100 from the adjacent data sets, as indicated by the labels on the right-
hand-side of each column. Experimental data with their associated
uncertainties are shown as black symbols with error bars. For the training
corpora, black circles are used, and for the Test corpus, black diamonds are
used. For the data in the training corpora only, any data points that were
identified as outliers with respect to the uncertainty-quantified OMPs are
plotted as white circles, enabling visual identification of points qualifying
as outliers (see the main text for details on the outlier identification
approach).

Predictions made using the CH89 and KD OMPs are indicated with the dashed gray
line. Predictions made using the CHUQDemocratic and KDUQDemocratic OMPs are
indicated with dark and light bands, which represent the 68% and 95%
uncertainty intervals. To avoid confusion between CHUQ and KDUQ, calculations
made using CHUQDemocratic are colored in blue and those made using
KDUQDemocratic are colored in red. For protons, the cross sections and cross
section uncertainties have been divided by the Rutherford cross section, to
facilitate visual comparison between neutron and proton data. In the handful
of instances where the reported experimental uncertainty was greater than or
equal to the experimental cross section, the experimental uncertainty plotted
in the figure was reduced to 99% of the cross section value, to reduce visual
clutter from lines plunging to (unphysical) negative cross sections. Finally,
for differential elastic scattering data sets at energies above roughly 75 ,
cross sections fall so rapidly with angle that high-angle cross sections are
difficult to plot on the same scale as the lower-energy, low-angle cross
sections. (There were no high-angle, high-energy experimental data, so this
issue only impacted calculated values). A similar situation appears in
plotting analyzing powers, which oscillate rapidly at high energies and large
angles ($>90$ degrees). To improve legibility, for the highest-energy
differential cross sections and analyzing powers, figures show predicted cross
sections only at forward center-of-momentum angles (typically up to 90
degrees) where experimental data exist, not to the maximum possible angle of
180 degrees.

For integral quantities (proton reaction cross section and neutron total cross
section), we use the same color conventions and uncertainty intervals for
plotting experimental data and OMP predictions.

Finally, a word of caution about assessing performance against the Test
corpus. The original CH89 OMP was intended to be used only for targets with
$A\geq 40$ and for energies $10\leq E\leq 65$ . As a significant fraction of
the Test corpus lies at lower and (much) higher energies than this range, it
is unsurprising that extrapolation of CHUQ beyond its intended limits yields
very poor reproduction of certain experimental data in the Test corpus (for
example, for proton scattering on 120Sn from 200-300 ). Still, we include
figures depicting CHUQ’s performance against the entire Test corpus in part to
illustrate how OMP predictions (even uncertainty-equipped ones) may rapidly
degrade when pushed beyond their limits. This provides some indication of the
peril of extrapolation in other dimensions, for example, away from
$\beta$-stability. For the KD OMP, the nominal validity range is with targets
of $A\geq 27$ and $0.001\leq E\leq 200$ , which has much larger overlap with
the Test corpus coverage. As such, the performance of KD and KDUQ against the
Test Corpus is far better than CHUQ in certain regimes, for example, proton
elastic scattering cross sections at 300 even though they are also well beyond
the nominal KD validity range.