<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 48** Setup for the high-brilliance γ production via inverse Compton-scattering (from Sarri et al. [371])</figcaption></figure>

of high-flux γ-rays from Compton scattering [371], high energy positron beams [372, 373], low-energy positron populations for material characterization [374] and the production of X and γ-ray beams, up to the multi-MeV level, for imaging and nuclear studies [375, 376] is investigated. MeV- and GeV-scale positron beams can be generated with the 45 and 250 TW laser systems that will be installed at the I-LUCE facility of LNS. These beams will allow for volumetric material inspection at unprecedented spatial resolution, with the so-called positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy or PALS, and a typical production setup is shown in Fig. 48.

To optimize the exploitation of all these sources, systematic studies of the generation mechanisms and their application must be carried out: the laser system that will be installed at INFN-LNS will be a natural candidate.

*Neutrons generation* In recent years, laser-driven neutron sources have attracted significant attention as they offer the compactness and affordability required for a university-scale facility to promote multidisciplinary applications. While the MeV neutrons are relevant for some specific applications, such as testing materials for fusion reactors and homeland security, most neutron science deals with thermal and epithermal neutrons. For instance, boron-neutron-capture therapy is one of the major drivers for the development of ultracompact neutron sources, mainly using conventional technologies to accelerate protons and electrons. High repetition rate lasers of moderate power (10 s–100 TW) can be highly useful in developing a compact source based on p-Li reaction. Near the reaction threshold of 1.88 MeV, the p-Li reaction yields neutrons of 10 s of keV energies in a narrow cone along the beam forward direction, which can in principle be deployed for the BNCT application without any moderation. Since moderate power lasers can efficiently accelerate the modest proton energies of 2 MeV, this route may prove to be more effective than using other higher yield neutron converters such as Be, which would require high proton energies and incur significant losses in neutron flux due to moderation.

### 6.2.2 Fusion, fission and nuclear scheme for applications

High-intensity lasers interacting with solids in vacuum produce non-equilibrium plasma having high equivalent temperatures and high ion energies. Under these conditions, depending on the laser parameters, irradiation characteristics and target composition and geometry, different nuclear reactions can be induced due to both the high plasma temperature and the wide ion energy distribution of the accelerated species. By focusing the laser spot of very high laser intensities above $10^{15}$ W cm$^2$ on solid targets it is possible to accelerate electrons and ions at relativistic energies above 1–10 MeV/nucleon, sufficient to penetrate into the nucleus of many light atoms. Thus laser-plasma may induce activation, transmutation, fission (to produce and study neutron-rich nuclei toward the *N* = 126 waiting point of the r-process for astrophysical investigations Fig. 49 [377]) and fusion processes (i.e., material of Sect. 6.2.2). The high plasma density and the non-isotropic plasma distribution enhance the number of nuclear events during the laser-plasma interaction along special directions. X and γ rays, electrons, different ion species and neutrons can be produced mono-energetically or in wide energy distribution.

Many nuclear reactions as the $^2$H(d,n)$^3$He, $^2$H(d,p)$^3$H, $^7$Li(d,n)$^8$Be and $^{11}$B(p,a)$^8$Be can be so triggered opening the route to a new physics (reactions in plasma are affected by phenomena like the electron screening, stopping power changes, still unknown) and application as the use of this system for energy production (inertial confinement fusion), table-top source realization and radioisotopes production.

*Proton-boron nuclear reaction in plasma* The proton-boron fusion reaction channel is of interest to many different research groups as a potential candidate for future advanced fusion ignition schemes and for the development of laser-driven α particles sources and their possible use, among others, in the production of short half-life radioisotopes for medical applications.
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 48 Setup for the high-brilliance γ production via inverse Compton-scattering (from Sarri et al. [371])</figcaption></figure>

of high-flux γ-rays from Compton scattering [371], high energy positron beams [372, 373], low-energy positron populations for material characterization [374] and the production of X and γ-ray beams, up to the multi-MeV level, for imaging and nuclear studies [375, 376] is investigated. MeV- and GeV-scale positron beams can be generated with the 45 and 250 TW laser systems that will be installed at the I-LUCE facility of LNS. These beams will allow for volumetric material inspection at unprecedented spatial resolution, with the so-called positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy or PALS, and a typical production setup is shown in Fig. 48.

To optimize the exploitation of all these sources, systematic studies of the generation mechanisms and their application must be carried out: the laser system that will be installed at INFN-LNS will be a natural candidate.

*Neutrons generation* In recent years, laser-driven neutron sources have attracted significant attention as they offer the compactness and affordability required for a university-scale facility to promote multidisciplinary applications. While the MeV neutrons are relevant for some specific applications, such as testing materials for fusion reactors and homeland security, most neutron science deals with thermal and epithermal neutrons. For instance, boron-neutron-capture therapy is one of the major drivers for the development of ultracompact neutron sources, mainly using conventional technologies to accelerate protons and electrons. High repetition rate lasers of moderate power (10 s–100 TW) can be highly useful in developing a compact source based on p-Li reaction. Near the reaction threshold of 1.88 MeV, the p-Li reaction yields neutrons of 10 s of keV energies in a narrow cone along the beam forward direction, which can in principle be deployed for the BNCT application without any moderation. Since moderate power lasers can efficiently accelerate the modest proton energies of 2 MeV, this route may prove to be more effective than using other higher yield neutron converters such as Be, which would require high proton energies and incur significant losses in neutron flux due to moderation.

### 6.2.2 Fusion, fission and nuclear scheme for applications

High-intensity lasers interacting with solids in vacuum produce non-equilibrium plasma having high equivalent temperatures and high ion energies. Under these conditions, depending on the laser parameters, irradiation characteristics and target composition and geometry, different nuclear reactions can be induced due to both the high plasma temperature and the wide ion energy distribution of the accelerated species. By focusing the laser spot of very high laser intensities above $10^{15}$ W cm$^2$ on solid targets it is possible to accelerate electrons and ions at relativistic energies above 1–10 MeV/nucleon, sufficient to penetrate into the nucleus of many light atoms. Thus laser-plasma may induce activation, transmutation, fission (to produce and study neutron-rich nuclei toward the *N* = 126 waiting point of the r-process for astrophysical investigations Fig. 49 [377]) and fusion processes (i.e., material of Sect. 6.2.2). The high plasma density and the non-isotropic plasma distribution enhance the number of nuclear events during the laser-plasma interaction along special directions. X and γ rays, electrons, different ion species and neutrons can be produced mono-energetically or in wide energy distribution.

Many nuclear reactions as the $^2$H(d,n)$^3$He, $^2$H(d,p)$^3$H, $^7$Li(d,n)$^8$Be and $^{11}$B(p,a)$^8$Be can be so triggered opening the route to a new physics (reactions in plasma are affected by phenomena like the electron screening, stopping power changes, still unknown) and application as the use of this system for energy production (inertial confinement fusion), table-top source realization and radioisotopes production.

*Proton-boron nuclear reaction in plasma* The proton-boron fusion reaction channel is of interest to many different research groups as a potential candidate for future advanced fusion ignition schemes and for the development of laser-driven α particles sources and their possible use, among others, in the production of short half-life radioisotopes for medical applications.
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 49** A possible scheme for the investigation of nuclear fusion/fission reactions with laser-induced ions</figcaption></figure>

In the last 15 years, proton-$^{11}$B fusion reaction has effectively been induced by means of high-power lasers, showing an impressive progression in the reaction yield. Recent experimental findings and theoretical predictions, along with the advent of dramatically enhanced laser capabilities, call for an urgent, systematic investigation of laser-driven proton-boron fusion. Such study would also include the generation of intense sources of $\alpha$ particles (pulsed beams) at high repetition rate (1 Hz–1 kHz) and in compact geometries for multidisciplinary applications, including radioisotope production.

In order to produce laser-driven $\alpha$-particle sources that can be competitive with today’s dedicated cyclotrons (e.g., Arronax produces 70 $\mu$A of $\alpha$ particles or about $10^4 \alpha/s$), we would need high-intensity lasers working at 100 Hz that are becoming a reality, indeed.

One of the goals of the present research consists of how to optimize the $\alpha$ production per laser shot. This implies several research lines: (i) comparing pitcher-catcher and in-target configurations, (ii) optimizing the proton beam (generated by TNSA or hole boring) and (iii) testing different kinds of targets enriched in hydrogen and/or with different geometrical configurations.

Such experimental investigation can be carried out in two different laser intensity regimes that will be also present at the INFN I-LUCE facility:

1. 100-TW-class laser (femtosecond) systems operating at 1–10 Hz (intensity $\ge 1\text{E}^{19} \text{ W/cm}^2$).

2. 1-TW class laser (femtosecond) systems operating at 0.1–1 kHz (intensity $\ge 1\text{E}^{17} \text{ W/cm}^2$).

A dedicated target system, able to operate at the required rates and the associated plasma and radiation diagnostics is also required.

*Radioisotopes production* There are hundreds of radioisotopes that can be produced with charged particle accelerators, i.e., that are accessible through proton or deuteron collisions (or, less frequently, with $^3$He or $\alpha$-particles). The cyclotron is the most commonly used accelerator for the isotopes accessible via reactions with projectiles at 10 MeV energies or less. Linacs (linear accelerators) are also frequently used. A few isotopes are obtained using nuclear reactors. An interesting comparison between different kinds of conventional accelerators can be found in [378].

Lasers, in turn, are a very promising alternative for this application [379, 380]. Laser technology is, in fact, quickly evolving in performance and cost reduction and, even if laser technology is still not mature enough to match or exceed the capabilities of the cyclotron, many perspectives are opening in this way. Laser-driven particles are very intense and, while often showing a wide energy spread, this could not be a limitation in the case of isotope generation but an added value covering wider cross section intervals, therefore, what could be the future role of a laser-driven accelerator? It is clear that to accelerate protons, deuterons or other ions at the energies relevant to radioisotope production, one needs [367] multi-TW laser systems, probably beyond 50 TW. On the other hand, the laser power itself is not sufficient: we also need lasers generating particle bunches at a repetition rate sufficient to ensure adequate average current. In this perspective, while high-power high repetition rate systems are at the horizon of technology, the relevant breakthroughs appear in target development [381]. Such systems, in fact, now typically operate at repetition rates of 10 shots per second (10 Hz) but the required major increase in laser repetition rate and power must be investigated developing advanced and faster target schemes.

On the other side, laser-based systems also present challenges and issues to be exceeded. One important difference, already discussed above, between conventionally accelerated and laser-accelerated protons, is the energy spectrum (or energy spread). With a conventional accelerator, the energy spectrum corresponds to a relatively narrow Gaussian velocity distribution. For a laser-driven proton accelerator, the energy spectrum is much broader. (This can be influenced greatly by the chosen acceleration mechanisms.) In certain cases, it opens the possibility of having competing reactions. For example, the foreseen $^{15}$N(p,n)$^{15}$O reaction channel might not be the only one favored by the incoming proton energies; $^{15}$N(p,2p)$^{14}$C could be also possible. In the last twenty years, tens of proof-of-principles experiments have been performed demonstrating the potentiality of a future laser-based approach in radioisotope production [382]. Different medical radioisotopes have been produced (from $^{18}$F, to $^{11}$C and $^{13}$N) and activities of the order of fractions of GBq have been obtained in many cases for 1/10 Hz repetition rate systems. Such activity levels even not yet sufficient for use in human diagnostics can be already adopted for preclinical studies with small animals.

A lot of work remains to be done in laser acceleration optimization, with the goal to optimize the proton velocity distributions and to better control the acceleration mechanisms. Furthermore, the development of optimized high repetition targets is critically needed; particularly for high repetition rate applications. Moreover, target structures can affect the final energy spectrum of accelerated electrons that drive ion acceleration [383] and can significantly enhance it in certain cases.
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 49** A possible scheme for the investigation of nuclear fusion/fission reactions with laser-induced ions</figcaption></figure>

In the last 15 years, proton-$^{11}$B fusion reaction has effectively been induced by means of high-power lasers, showing an impressive progression in the reaction yield. Recent experimental findings and theoretical predictions, along with the advent of dramatically enhanced laser capabilities, call for an urgent, systematic investigation of laser-driven proton-boron fusion. Such study would also include the generation of intense sources of $\alpha$ particles (pulsed beams) at high repetition rate (1 Hz–1 kHz) and in compact geometries for multidisciplinary applications, including radioisotope production.

In order to produce laser-driven $\alpha$-particle sources that can be competitive with today’s dedicated cyclotrons (e.g., Arronax produces 70 $\mu$A of $\alpha$ particles or about $10^4 \alpha/s$), we would need high-intensity lasers working at 100 Hz that are becoming a reality, indeed.

One of the goals of the present research consists of how to optimize the $\alpha$ production per laser shot. This implies several research lines: (i) comparing pitcher-catcher and in-target configurations, (ii) optimizing the proton beam (generated by TNSA or hole boring) and (iii) testing different kinds of targets enriched in hydrogen and/or with different geometrical configurations.

Such experimental investigation can be carried out in two different laser intensity regimes that will be also present at the INFN I-LUCE facility:

1. 100-TW-class laser (femtosecond) systems operating at 1–10 Hz (intensity $\ge 1\text{E}^{19} \text{ W/cm}^2$).

2. 1-TW class laser (femtosecond) systems operating at 0.1–1 kHz (intensity $\ge 1\text{E}^{17} \text{ W/cm}^2$).

A dedicated target system, able to operate at the required rates and the associated plasma and radiation diagnostics is also required.

*Radioisotopes production* There are hundreds of radioisotopes that can be produced with charged particle accelerators, i.e., that are accessible through proton or deuteron collisions (or, less frequently, with $^3$He or $\alpha$-particles). The cyclotron is the most commonly used accelerator for the isotopes accessible via reactions with projectiles at 10 MeV energies or less. Linacs (linear accelerators) are also frequently used. A few isotopes are obtained using nuclear reactors. An interesting comparison between different kinds of conventional accelerators can be found in [378].

Lasers, in turn, are a very promising alternative for this application [379, 380]. Laser technology is, in fact, quickly evolving in performance and cost reduction and, even if laser technology is still not mature enough to match or exceed the capabilities of the cyclotron, many perspectives are opening in this way. Laser-driven particles are very intense and, while often showing a wide energy spread, this could not be a limitation in the case of isotope generation but an added value covering wider cross section intervals, therefore, what could be the future role of a laser-driven accelerator? It is clear that to accelerate protons, deuteron or other ions at the energies relevant to radioisotope production, one needs [367] multi-TW laser systems, probably beyond 50 TW. On the other hand, the laser power itself is not sufficient: we also need lasers generating particle bunches at a repetition rate sufficient to ensure adequate average current. In this perspective, while high-power high repetition rate systems are at the horizon of technology, the relevant breakthroughs appear in target development [381]. Such systems, in fact, now typically operate at repetition rates of 10 shots per second (10 Hz) but the required major increase in laser repetition rate and power must be investigated developing advanced and faster target schemes.

On the other side, laser-based systems also present challenges and issues to be exceeded. One important difference, already discussed above, between conventionally accelerated and laser-accelerated protons, is the energy spectrum (or energy spread). With a conventional accelerator, the energy spectrum corresponds to a relatively narrow Gaussian velocity distribution. For a laser-driven proton accelerator, the energy spectrum is much broader. (This can be influenced greatly by the chosen acceleration mechanisms.) In certain cases, it opens the possibility of having competing reactions. For example, the foreseen $^{15}$N(p,n)$^{15}$O reaction channel might not be the only one favored by the incoming proton energies; $^{15}$N(p,2p)$^{14}$C could be also possible. In the last twenty years, tens of proof-of-principles experiments have been performed demonstrating the potentiality of a future laser-based approach in radioisotope production [382]. Different medical radioisotopes have been produced (from $^{18}$F, to $^{11}$C and $^{13}$N) and activities of the order of fractions of GBq have been obtained in many cases for 1/10 Hz repetition rate systems. Such activity levels even not yet sufficient for use in human diagnostics can be already adopted for preclinical studies with small animals.

A lot of work remains to be done in laser acceleration optimization, with the goal to optimize the proton velocity distributions and to better control the acceleration mechanisms. Furthermore, the development of optimized high repetition targets is critically needed; particularly for high repetition rate applications. Moreover, target structures can affect the final energy spectrum of accelerated electrons that drive ion acceleration [383] and can significantly enhance it in certain cases.
**Fig. 50** Schematic representation of the radionuclide generation process using laser acceleration of protons. The laser pulse hits the primary target and generates by TNSA (target normal sheath acceleration) a proton bunch. Protons subsequently hit a secondary target where the nuclear reaction occurs. The distance between the primary and the secondary target can be reduced and also the geometry (not necessarily flat as seen in the figure) to use the complete not collimated proton beam

**Fig. 51** Warm dense matter area representation as a function of electron temperature and density

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

An optimized laser target system, with basic metrology, can be designed to be much more compact with respect to the currently used, representing a strong potential advantage of the laser approach. In this case, the radioactive shielding is just for the small volume around the focal spot (including the primary target, accelerated ion yield and secondary target, as shown in Fig. 50) and this will certainly dramatically reduce the costs of radioprotection in such approaches.

In conclusion, laser-driven ions and photons could represent an innovative and effective way to generate future radioisotopes also in new exotic schemes and to exploit the extreme intensity and the new physics underlying the nuclear reaction processes in extreme dense plasmas.

*Stopping power in warm dense matter (WDM) and applications* Ion stopping in warm dense matter (a matter state well described in Fig. 51 in terms of electron temperature and mass density) is a process of fundamental importance for the understanding of the properties of dense plasmas. The realization and the interpretation of experiments involving ion beam heated warm dense matter samples, astrophysics and inertial confinement fusion research and, in general, nuclear reaction processes in plasma that could produce interesting applications like the realization of table-top sources of neutrons (Sect. 6.2.1) or α particles (Sect. 6.2.2) or the radioisotope generation in advanced irradiation schemes (Sect. 6.2.2).

The theoretical description of the ion stopping power in warm dense matter is a challenge due to electron coupling and degeneracy, and measurements are still largely missing. In particular, the low velocity stopping range, which features the largest modeling uncertainties, remains virtually unexplored. Recently, the Group of the CPLU (Centre de Laseres Pulsados) in Salamanca (S) reported proton energy loss measurements in warm dense plasma at unprecedented low projectile velocities by using the 200 TW system there available. They demonstrated a significant reduction (about 18%) of the stopping power from classical models in this regime (Fig. 52) in agreement with recent first principles simulations based on time-dependent density functional theory.

Hundreds of TW-class laser systems are an ideal environment to perform “ultrafast pump and probe” experiments in WDM and in general for high energy density physics. Pump and probe experiments for WDM and HED physics require a <30 fs 10–200 TW laser systems. The I-LUCE facility of INFN-LNS will represent the second world-facility [with the PHELIX laser at the GSI (Darmstradt, D)] where, in the same experimental room, plasmas from high-power lasers and conventional medium energy (4–100 AMeV) protons and ions beams, produced by the already operating Tandem and cyclotron accelerators already operating, will
**Fig. 50** Schematic representation of the radionuclide generation process using laser acceleration of protons. The laser pulse hits the primary target and generates by TNSA (target normal sheath acceleration) a proton bunch. Protons subsequently hit a secondary target where the nuclear reaction occurs. The distance between the primary and the secondary target can be reduced and also the geometry (not necessarily flat as seen in the figure) to use the complete not collimated proton beam

**Fig. 51** Warm dense matter area representation as a function of electron temperature and density

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

An optimized laser target system, with basic metrology, can be designed to be much more compact with respect to the currently used, representing a strong potential advantage of the laser approach. In this case, the radioactive shielding is just for the small volume around the focal spot (including the primary target, accelerated ion yield and secondary target, as shown in Fig. 50) and this will certainly dramatically reduce the costs of radioprotection in such approaches.

In conclusion, laser-driven ions and photons could represent an innovative and effective way to generate future radioisotopes also in new exotic schemes and to exploit the extreme intensity and the new physics underlying the nuclear reaction processes in extreme dense plasmas.

*Stopping power in warm dense matter (WDM) and applications* Ion stopping in warm dense matter (a matter state well described in Fig. 51 in terms of electron temperature and mass density) is a process of fundamental importance for the understanding of the properties of dense plasmas. The realization and the interpretation of experiments involving ion beam heated warm dense matter samples, astrophysics and inertial confinement fusion research and, in general, nuclear reaction processes in plasma that could produce interesting applications like the realization of table-top sources of neutrons (Sect. 6.2.1) or α particles (Sect. 6.2.2) or the radioisotope generation in advanced irradiation schemes (Sect. 6.2.2).

The theoretical description of the ion stopping power in warm dense matter is a challenge due to electron coupling and degeneracy, and measurements are still largely missing. In particular, the low velocity stopping range, which features the largest modeling uncertainties, remains virtually unexplored. Recently, the Group of the CPLU (Centre de Laseres Pulsados) in Salamanca (S) reported proton energy loss measurements in warm dense plasma at unprecedented low projectile velocities by using the 200 TW system there available. They demonstrated a significant reduction (about 18%) of the stopping power from classical models in this regime (Fig. 52) in agreement with recent first principles simulations based on time-dependent density functional theory.

Hundreds of TW-class laser systems are an ideal environment to perform “ultrafast pump and probe” experiments in WDM and in general for high energy density physics. Pump and probe experiments for WDM and HED physics require a <30 fs 10–200 TW laser systems. The I-LUCE facility of INFN-LNS will represent the second world-facility [with the PHELIX laser at the GSI (Darmstradt, D)] where, in the same experimental room, plasmas from high-power lasers and conventional medium energy (4–100 AMeV) protons and ions beams, produced by the already operating Tandem and cyclotron accelerators already operating, will
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 52** Stopping power of low-energy protons in warm dense matter condition measured with an ultrafast pump and probe configuration at the CPLU laboratory in Salamanca</figcaption></figure>

coexist. This configuration will allow for the realization of WDM experiments with an unprecedented novelty (due to the wide ranges of ions and energies available), precision and accuracy.

### 6.2.3 Novel approach to hydrogen production from water by focused femtosecond laser pulses

In recent years, femtosecond laser-driven water splitting has also attracted increasing attention, offering a novel approach to the direct production of pure hydrogen [384]. Although the interactions between ultrashort laser pulses and liquid water have been studied in the past, trying to explain the mechanism of non-equilibrium plasma formation in the focal spot [385, 386], the dynamics of associated bubble nucleation [387], as well as providing preliminary signals about the possibility of obtaining hydrogen gas in this way [388, 389], the production of hydrogen by focused pulses of a femtosecond laser is a completely new concept that attracts considerable interest from researchers [390]. In the pioneering research developed by the Lodz University of Technology (Poland), the decomposition of water using femtosecond laser pulses (100 fs, $\lambda$ = 800 nm) focused into a rectangular quartz cell containing ultrapurified water was thoroughly investigated and quantified [384]. The scheme of the measuring setup is shown in Fig. 53a. As a result of numerous radical reactions induced by plasma, the formation of stable products including molecular hydrogen ($H_2$) and hydrogen peroxide ($H_2O_2$) was identified and analyzed as a function of irradiation time, repetition rate (0.1–1 kHz), and pulse energies up to 1 mJ. Most importantly, the experiments demonstrated that decreasing the pulse energy and repetition rate boosted the energy efficiency of $H_2$ generation (expressed in nmol $H_2$ per Joule of incident energy in Fig. 53b). Interestingly, under specific irradiation conditions at 1 kHz, only hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide were generated (without $O_2$, which corresponds to the ratio of $H_2/H_2O_2$ equal 1) as the products of water decomposition (see Fig. 53b). This finding is advantageous from the practical point of view because no gas separation step is required and the molecular hydrogen can be easily collected as the sole gaseous product, as opposed to the typical stoichiometric decomposition of water into $H_2$ and $O_2$.

In the discussed study [384], to optimize the energy yield of $H_2$ production in a particular regime, in which the only gaseous product of water decomposition is hydrogen, the authors proposed a concept of process intensification involving a series of split low-energy laser beams generating plasma in different zones with a sufficiently fast flow of water. For the suggested solution, the predicted energy efficiency of hydrogen production of 0.4 g $H_2$/kWh was found to be comparable to other methods for $H_2$ generation using plasma discharges in water. This research put a step forward in understanding the chemical mechanism of femtosecond laser-water interactions and it provided the basis for exploring other concepts of hydrogen generation from aqueous solutions, such as seawater. This has been explored at Shizuoka University (Japan) [391] using a previously developed approach [384]. The reported yield of hydrogen generation from seawater was approximately 30% higher than the ultrapure water case. What is more, using a cylindrical cell rather than a rectangular one, as expected, further improved the production rate of hydrogen under certain irradiation conditions. These results suggest that the use of femtosecond lasers to generate hydrogen from aqueous solutions is a method with a promising future, for both research and application.

## 6.3 Plasma traps

The activities related to the plasma trap topic have been subdivided into three different sub-units.

* *Magnetic plasma stopping power and charge breeding:* numerical simulation studies of the capture processes of multicharged ions in magneto-plasmas at different densities and temperatures, relevant for ISOL facilities and for inertial fusion purposes (both heating and diagnostics). These activities are ongoing even by looking experimental perspectives in PANDORA-Phase 2 (5–7 years) with charge breeding techniques adopted for in-flight capture isotopes at $\tau < 60d$.

* *Physics and technology for fusion plasmas:* R & D on diagnostics: detection, collimation and active shuttering methods for soft X-ray and hard X-ray spectroscopy and tomography useful for the study of magnetized plasmas for fusion in compact traps and reactors (TOKAMAK). Innovative diagnostic systems such as reflectometers and interferometers for the control of plasma
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 52** Stopping power of low-energy protons in warm dense matter condition measured with an ultrafast pump and probe configuration at the CPLU laboratory in Salamanca</figcaption></figure>

coexist. This configuration will allow for the realization of WDM experiments with an unprecedented novelty (due to the wide ranges of ions and energies available), precision and accuracy.

### 6.2.3 Novel approach to hydrogen production from water by focused femtosecond laser pulses

In recent years, femtosecond laser-driven water splitting has also attracted increasing attention, offering a novel approach to the direct production of pure hydrogen [384]. Although the interactions between ultrashort laser pulses and liquid water have been studied in the past, trying to explain the mechanism of non-equilibrium plasma formation in the focal spot [385, 386], the dynamics of associated bubble nucleation [387], as well as providing preliminary signals about the possibility of obtaining hydrogen gas in this way [388, 389], the production of hydrogen by focused pulses of a femtosecond laser is a completely new concept that attracts considerable interest from researchers [390]. In the pioneering research developed by the Lodz University of Technology (Poland), the decomposition of water using femtosecond laser pulses (100 fs, $\lambda$ = 800 nm) focused into a rectangular quartz cell containing ultrapurified water was thoroughly investigated and quantified [384]. The scheme of the measuring setup is shown in Fig. 53a. As a result of numerous radical reactions induced by plasma, the formation of stable products including molecular hydrogen ($H_2$) and hydrogen peroxide ($H_2O_2$) was identified and analyzed as a function of irradiation time, repetition rate (0.1–1 kHz), and pulse energies up to 1 mJ. Most importantly, the experiments demonstrated that decreasing the pulse energy and repetition rate boosted the energy efficiency of $H_2$ generation (expressed in nmol $H_2$ per Joule of incident energy in Fig. 53b). Interestingly, under specific irradiation conditions at 1 kHz, only hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide were generated (without $O_2$, which corresponds to the ratio of $H_2/H_2O_2$ equal 1) as the products of water decomposition (see Fig. 53b). This finding is advantageous from the practical point of view because no gas separation step is required and the molecular hydrogen can be easily collected as the sole gaseous product, as opposed to the typical stoichiometric decomposition of water into $H_2$ and $O_2$.

In the discussed study [384], to optimize the energy yield of $H_2$ production in a particular regime, in which the only gaseous product of water decomposition is hydrogen, the authors proposed a concept of process intensification involving a series of split low-energy laser beams generating plasma in different zones with a sufficiently fast flow of water. For the suggested solution, the predicted energy efficiency of hydrogen production of 0.4 g $H_2$/kWh was found to be comparable to other methods for $H_2$ generation using plasma discharges in water. This research put a step forward in understanding the chemical mechanism of femtosecond laser-water interactions and it provided the basis for exploring other concepts of hydrogen generation from aqueous solutions, such as seawater. This has been explored at Shizuoka University (Japan) [391] using a previously developed approach [384]. The reported yield of hydrogen generation from seawater was approximately 30% higher than the ultrapure water case. What is more, using a cylindrical cell rather than a rectangular one, as expected, further improved the production rate of hydrogen under certain irradiation conditions. These results suggest that the use of femtosecond lasers to generate hydrogen from aqueous solutions is a method with a promising future, for both research and application.

## 6.3 Plasma traps

The activities related to the plasma trap topic have been subdivided into three different sub-units.

* *Magnetic plasma stopping power and charge breeding:* numerical simulation studies of the capture processes of multicharged ions in magneto-plasmas at different densities and temperatures, relevant for ISOL facilities and for inertial fusion purposes (both heating and diagnostics). These activities are ongoing even by looking experimental perspectives in PANDORA-Phase 2 (5–7 years) with charge breeding techniques adopted for in-flight capture isotopes at $\tau < 60d$.

* *Physics and technology for fusion plasmas:* R & D on diagnostics: detection, collimation and active shuttering methods for soft X-ray and hard X-ray spectroscopy and tomography useful for the study of magnetized plasmas for fusion in compact traps and reactors (TOKAMAK). Innovative diagnostic systems such as reflectometers and interferometers for the control of plasma
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 54** The flexible plasma trap at INFN-LNS is made of three solenoids allowing different magnetic field profile, it has three microwave inputs (one axial and two radials) and operates in the microwave frequency range 4–7 GHz. Different noninvasive diagnostic tools can be installed simultaneously in the flanges of FPT in order to characterize plasma parameters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

density and its spatial profile. Wave propagation/absorption in fusion plasmas: theoretical study of electromagnetic propagation and related absorption mechanisms in magnetized plasmas for fusion and compact traps; study of innovative heating and energy transport mechanisms for increasing confinement and reaction rates; development of antennas and systems for the excitation and control of thermonuclear fusion plasmas and/or for ion propulsion; ion cyclotron heating with innovative compact antennas; ICH in case of polarized ions.

*New generation plasma chambers and resonators for compact reactors*: design, numerical investigation and experimental tests of advanced plasma chambers ensuring better radiation-plasma coupling, stability, control and confinement.

As far as compact trap and related setups are concerned, we refer to the existing testbench facility now operating at LNS, such as the flexible plasma trap (FPT) for the development of diagnostics, heating systems, etc. (see Fig. 54) or the new PANDORA scenario that has been described in Sect. 2.3.
**Fig. 53** *a* Setup for hydrogen production from water by focused femtosecond laser; *b* $H_2$ production. Adopted from Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. [384]

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 54** The flexible plasma trap at INFN-LNS is made of three solenoids allowing different magnetic field profile, it has three microwave inputs (one axial and two radials) and operates in the microwave frequency range 4–7 GHz. Different noninvasive diagnostic tools can be installed simultaneously in the flanges of FPT in order to characterize plasma parameters

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

density and its spatial profile. Wave propagation/absorption in fusion plasmas: theoretical study of electromagnetic propagation and related absorption mechanisms in magnetized plasmas for fusion and compact traps; study of innovative heating and energy transport mechanisms for increasing confinement and reaction rates; development of antennas and systems for the excitation and control of thermonuclear fusion plasmas and/or for ion propulsion; ion cyclotron heating with innovative compact antennas; ICH in case of polarized ions.

*New generation plasma chambers and resonators for compact reactors*: design, numerical investigation and experimental tests of advanced plasma chambers ensuring better radiation-plasma coupling, stability, control and confinement.

As far as compact trap and related setups are concerned, we refer to the existing testbench facility now operating at LNS, such as the flexible plasma trap (FPT) for the development of diagnostics, heating systems, etc. (see Fig. 54) or the new PANDORA scenario that has been described in Sect. 2.3.
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 55** Left-3D view of a particle beam injected into the high-density plasmoid; right—2D view of ion stopping positions map at different input energies</figcaption></figure>

### 6.3.1 Magnetic plasma

The ion beam–plasma interaction is a relevant topic in several fields of plasma physics, from fusion devices to modern ion sources. The numerical modeling of the whole beam-plus-plasma-target system in case of singly or multiply charged ions entering an electron–cyclotron–resonance (ECR) trap (e.g., an ECR-based charge breeder, ECR-CB) has been started since 5 years in a collaboration between LNS and LNL [392–394]. Possible non-linear interactions and the role played by the eventual onset of instabilities have also been addressed. A code aiming at modeling ECR-CB has to be particularly suitable to reproduce the elastic Coulomb collisions between injected and plasma ions (see Fig. 55); this issue is relevant also in other fields such as astrophysics or inertial confinement fusion [391, 395–397]. Electron dynamics in high-density processing plasmas also require advanced Coulomb collisions simulations, even in those cases where 90° scattering is dominated by e-neutral collisions: e–e collisions determine in fact the electron energy distribution function, populating the high-energy tail by energy up-scattering.

### 6.3.2 Fusion plasma

In the context of the laboratory plasmas (including fusion plasmas in toroidal devices, plasma traps, plasma thruster), as well as astrophysical tenuous plasmas, the role of the RF plasma interaction both for heating or instability studies remains a crucial point. Solution of the Maxwell–Vlasov system and Fokker–Planck equations (in collisional regime) is mandatory to understand the physics of interaction. Numerical codes based on the theoretical analysis of the model equations have been developed [398, 399]. The exploitation of the numerical codes for some specific experimental or technological goals enables to study the features of the RF wave propagation, absorption or wave instability in plasma including technological as well as astrophysical applications. In particular, the above numerical codes could be applied and used in planned and under-construction devices as DTT (for fusion applications), plasma traps, plasma thruster, electromagnetic instabilities in galactic plasmas, in the polarization or depolarization of the nuclear ions in order to increase the ion cross section. This activity could be easily executed in a midterm time range (5 years), and it can produce some interesting results making it possible some cross-over among different physical context as, for example, thermonuclear fusion vs plasma propulsion, thermonuclear fusion vs polarized ions, plasma traps vs acceleration of neutral beam for fusion application, and lab plasma physics vs astrophysical plasma in growing electromagnetic instabilities.

Another topic of research in the field of wave-plasma interaction are the non-linear phenomena taking place at the plasma edge, e.g., due to ponderomotive force and RF sheaths. Their effects span from harmless modification of the edge plasma density via convective cells to deleterious impurity generation via sputtering yields. If equipped with a suitable RF system, the PANDORA facility at LNS may provide a noteworthy contribution to the improvement of physics models for such phenomena and/or their experimental benchmark. The LNS is involved in several activities involving the Laboratory plasmas both via collaboration with some partners like ENEA for the design and construction of a high-power ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) antenna for DTT plasma heating and by planning the construction of devices like Plasma Traps or studying the feasibility of a plasma thruster for propulsion application. In this context of already started mutual scientific interests, this kind of activity could be extremely profitable. Efforts are now focused in particular on the design of compact ion cyclotron heating antennas for compact traps (ICH-CT) (see Fig. 56) resulting in different ion density and energy distributions such as the one shown in Fig. 57 [400, 401].

**Fusion from polarized fuel** An important breakthrough in the future of fusion energy may come from the use of polarized nuclear fuel. From the point of view of the nuclear physics, the use of polarized fuel seems the viable way in order to increase nuclear fusion rates for energy production, thanks to:

* enhancement of fusion cross sections,
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 55 Left-3D view of a particle beam injected into the high-density plasmoid; right—2D view of ion stopping positions map at different input energies</figcaption></figure>

### 6.3.1 Magnetic plasma

The ion beam–plasma interaction is a relevant topic in several fields of plasma physics, from fusion devices to modern ion sources. The numerical modeling of the whole beam-plus-plasma-target system in case of singly or multiply charged ions entering an electron–cyclotron–resonance (ECR) trap (e.g., an ECR-based charge breeder, ECR-CB) has been started since 5 years in a collaboration between LNS and LNL [392–394]. Possible non-linear interactions and the role played by the eventual onset of instabilities have also been addressed. A code aiming at modeling ECR-CB has to be particularly suitable to reproduce the elastic Coulomb collisions between injected and plasma ions (see Fig. 55); this issue is relevant also in other fields such as astrophysics or inertial confinement fusion [391, 395–397]. Electron dynamics in high-density processing plasmas also require advanced Coulomb collisions simulations, even in those cases where 90° scattering is dominated by e-neutral collisions: e–e collisions determine in fact the electron energy distribution function, populating the high-energy tail by energy up-scattering.

### 6.3.2 Fusion plasma

In the context of the laboratory plasmas (including fusion plasmas in toroidal devices, plasma traps, plasma thruster), as well as astrophysical tenuous plasmas, the role of the RF plasma interaction both for heating or instability studies remains a crucial point. Solution of the Maxwell–Vlasov system and Fokker–Planck equations (in collisional regime) is mandatory to understand the physics of interaction. Numerical codes based on the theoretical analysis of the model equations have been developed [398, 399]. The exploitation of the numerical codes for some specific experimental or technological goals enables to study the features of the RF wave propagation, absorption or wave instability in plasma including technological as well as astrophysical applications. In particular, the above numerical codes could be applied and used in planned and under-construction devices as DTT (for fusion applications), plasma traps, plasma thruster, electromagnetic instabilities in galactic plasmas, in the polarization or depolarization of the nuclear ions in order to increase the ion cross section. This activity could be easily executed in a midterm time range (5 years), and it can produce some interesting results making it possible some cross-over among different physical context as, for example, thermonuclear fusion vs plasma propulsion, thermonuclear fusion vs polarized ions, plasma traps vs acceleration of neutral beam for fusion application, and lab plasma physics vs astrophysical plasma in growing electromagnetic instabilities.

Another topic of research in the field of wave-plasma interaction are the non-linear phenomena taking place at the plasma edge, e.g., due to ponderomotive force and RF sheaths. Their effects span from harmless modification of the edge plasma density via convective cells to deleterious impurity generation via sputtering yields. If equipped with a suitable RF system, the PANDORA facility at LNS may provide a noteworthy contribution to the improvement of physics models for such phenomena and/or their experimental benchmark. The LNS is involved in several activities involving the Laboratory plasmas both via collaboration with some partners like ENEA for the design and construction of a high-power ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) antenna for DTT plasma heating and by planning the construction of devices like Plasma Traps or studying the feasibility of a plasma thruster for propulsion application. In this context of already started mutual scientific interests, this kind of activity could be extremely profitable. Efforts are now focused in particular on the design of compact ion cyclotron heating antennas for compact traps (ICH-CT) (see Fig. 56) resulting in different ion density and energy distributions such as the one shown in Fig. 57 [400, 401].

**Fusion from polarized fuel** An important breakthrough in the future of fusion energy may come from the use of polarized nuclear fuel. From the point of view of the nuclear physics, the use of polarized fuel seems the viable way in order to increase nuclear fusion rates for energy production, thanks to:

* enhancement of fusion cross sections,
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 56** Different ICH antenna designs for compact plasma traps. From left to right: simple loop, Nagoya type III and helical antenna. The antennas have been placed inside a cylindrical cavity of radius $R = 140$ mm and length $L = 700$ mm</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 57** Ion density and energy distribution for two antenna types. In particular, projection maps along the cavity z-axis of particle numerical density (top) and energy (bottom) in [eV], resulting from kinetics simulation of ions $^{16}$O+ under the presence of cavity coupled EM field as computed for simple loop (left) and helical (right) antennas. Dashed-lines indicate the ICR surface in the simulation domain</figcaption></figure>

* control of angular distribution of reaction products,

* possible neutron lean reactors.

It was known that fusion reactions take place only when the nuclear spins of the reacting nuclei are aligned, relative to each other, in well-defined ways; therefore, at least in theory, $D-T$, $D-D$, or $D\text{-}^3$He plasmas could have higher fusion yields by factors of 1.5–2 with suitable polarization of the ion nuclear spins (see for more details the book-proceedings and papers therein: [402]).

This field of research is still challenging but, on the other side, really promising. One major issue still relies to the procurement of the polarized fuel to be used in fusion suitable environments. This holds also from the point of view of testbench characterizations and cross section measurements in laboratory: for instance, only few ion sources for polarized beams of D or T are available at the present time [403]. For this reason, fusion of DD-double polarized cross sections data are still missing. In a midterm perspective, laboratory measurements and development of suitable theory in the 10–100 keV range and beyond would be of paramount relevance and impact. Of extremely relevant impact is also the issue of mastering polarized fuel in nuclear fusion reactors. Powerful RF sources could be used for plasma heating in Tokamaks aiming at selective heating that could polarize and/or prevent depolarization of the nuclear fuel, or be used for plasma diagnostic purposes as with a sort of MRI technique [404]. The possibility of including spin-wave interaction effects into the ion cyclotron resonant heating (ICRH) models has been evaluated and included in the ICRH wave propagation/absorption codes [405].
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 56** Different ICH antenna designs for compact plasma traps. From left to right: simple loop, Nagoya type III and helical antenna. The antennas have been placed inside a cylindrical cavity of radius $R = 140$ mm and length $L = 700$ mm</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 57** Ion density and energy distribution for two antenna types. In particular, projection maps along the cavity z-axis of particle numerical density (top) and energy (bottom) in [eV], resulting from kinetics simulation of ions $^{16}$O+ under the presence of cavity coupled EM field as computed for simple loop (left) and helical (right) antennas. Dashed-lines indicate the ICR surface in the simulation domain</figcaption></figure>

* control of angular distribution of reaction products,

* possible neutron lean reactors.

It was known that fusion reactions take place only when the nuclear spins of the reacting nuclei are aligned, relative to each other, in well-defined ways; therefore, at least in theory, $D-T$, $D-D$, or $D\text{-}^3$He plasmas could have higher fusion yields by factors of 1.5–2 with suitable polarization of the ion nuclear spins (see for more details the book-proceedings and papers therein: [402]).

This field of research is still challenging but, on the other side, really promising. One major issue still relies to the procurement of the polarized fuel to be used in fusion suitable environments. This holds also from the point of view of testbench characterizations and cross section measurements in laboratory: for instance, only few ion sources for polarized beams of D or T are available at the present time [403]. For this reason, fusion of DD-double polarized cross sections data are still missing. In a midterm perspective, laboratory measurements and development of suitable theory in the 10–100 keV range and beyond would be of paramount relevance and impact. Of extremely relevant impact is also the issue of mastering polarized fuel in nuclear fusion reactors. Powerful RF sources could be used for plasma heating in Tokamaks aiming at selective heating that could polarize and/or prevent depolarization of the nuclear fuel, or be used for plasma diagnostic purposes as with a sort of MRI technique [404]. The possibility of including spin-wave interaction effects into the ion cyclotron resonant heating (ICRH) models has been evaluated and included in the ICRH wave propagation/absorption codes [405].
**Fig. 58** Break of cylindrical symmetry for plasma chamber-resonator in compact traps, allowing innovative microwave launching schemes: on the left, the geometry of a classical cylindrical cavity; on the right, the unconventional chamber implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics where the shape consists of two “three-brunches” stars rotated of 60° one with respect to the other, that overlap in the middle of the plasma chamber

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

### 6.3.3 Compact reactors

A reshaping of both plasma chamber and launching system is proposed here. Looking at the fusion reactors (e.g., Stellarators)—where the vessels have been fashioned in a way that closely imitates the magnetic field structure—herein we propose for ECRISs a new development mostly in terms of: (i) novel cavity resonator shapes fashioned to the twisting magnetic structure, and, therefore, to the shape of an electron isodensity surface; (ii) new RF launching schemes based on “Slotted Waveguides”, allowing diffractive, high-efficiency irradiation inside the plasma chamber [406].

A reshaping of both the plasma chamber and related RF launching system (see Fig. 58) is considered as a possible solution for a better wave-to-plasma coupling in ECRIS, maximizing the absorption of the RF power into the plasma core, and avoiding “hollow” plasma (where most of the electrons are concentrated in the near resonance region, as well as plasma ions, leaving a “hole” in the near axis zone [407]) in order to obtain the most desirable configurations maximizing the ion beam brilliance where the power is deposited in the plasma core.

Moreover, it will be possible to online evaluate in noninvasive mode the plasma structure change in the new shape of the plasma chamber and directly compare it with the conventional cylindrical one, through high resolution spectrally-resolved X-ray imaging. This technique, by means of a X-ray pin-hole camera setup, represents a powerful method for obtaining structural information on the plasma and for investigating the deep plasma dynamics [408, 409]. Recently, both the X-ray imaging setup [410] and the algorithm of analysis [411] have been updated and improved to remarkably increase signal-to-noise ratio at relatively high pumping RF power mode (up to 200 W in compact traps). In addition, this system, with new collimation and active shuttering methods for soft X and hard X spectroscopy/tomography, which could be executed in a midterm time range (5 years), is a very useful for the study of magnetized plasmas for fusion in compact traps and reactors (TOKAMAK).

**Acknowledgements** We thank S. Piantelli and G. Verde for carefully reading this manuscript.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Catania within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

**Data Availability Statement** No data associated in the manuscript.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

1. C. Broggini, O. Straniero, M.G.F. Taiuti, G. de Angelis, G. Benzoni, G.E. Bruno, S. Bufalino, G. Cardella, N. Colonna, M. Contalbrigo, G. Cosentino, S. Cristallo, C. Curceanu, E. De Filippo, R. Depalo, A. Di Leva, A. Feliciello, S. Gammino, A. Galatà, M. La Cognata, R. Lea, S. Leoni, I. Lombardo, V. Manzari, D. Mascali, C. Massimi, A. Mengoni, D. Mengoni, D.R. Napoli, S. Palmerini, S. Piano, S. Pirrone, R.G. Pizzone, G. Politi, P. Prati, G. Prete, P. Russotto, G. Tagliente, G.M. Urciuoli, Experimental nuclear astrophysics in Italy. Nuovo Cim. Riv. Ser. 42, 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncr/i2019-10157-1. arXiv:1902.05262 [nucl-ex]

2. A. Badalà, M. La Cognata, R. Nania, M. Osipenko, S. Piantelli, R. Turrisi, L. Barion, S. Capra, D. Carbone, F. Carnesecchi, E.A.R. Casula, C. Chatterjee, G.F. Ciani, R. Depalo, A. Di Nitto, A. Fantini, A. Goasduff, G.L. Guardo, A.C. Kraan, A. Manna, L. Marsicano, N.S. Martorana, L. Morales-Gallegos, E. Naselli, A. Scordo, S. Valdré, G. Volpe, Trends in particle and nuclei identification techniques in nuclear physics experiments. Nuovo Cim. Riv. Ser. 45(3), 189-277 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40766-021-00028-5
**Fig. 58** Break of cylindrical symmetry for plasma chamber-resonator in compact traps, allowing innovative microwave launching schemes: on the left, the geometry of a classical cylindrical cavity; on the right, the unconventional chamber implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics where the shape consists of two “three-brunches” stars rotated of 60° one with respect to the other, that overlap in the middle of the plasma chamber

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

### 6.3.3 Compact reactors

A reshaping of both plasma chamber and launching system is proposed here. Looking at the fusion reactors (e.g., Stellarators)—where the vessels have been fashioned in a way that closely imitates the magnetic field structure—herein we propose for ECRISs a new development mostly in terms of: (i) novel cavity resonator shapes fashioned to the twisting magnetic structure, and, therefore, to the shape of an electron isodensity surface; (ii) new RF launching schemes based on “Slotted Waveguides”, allowing diffractive, high-efficiency irradiation inside the plasma chamber [406].

A reshaping of both the plasma chamber and related RF launching system (see Fig. 58) is considered as a possible solution for a better wave-to-plasma coupling in ECRIS, maximizing the absorption of the RF power into the plasma core, and avoiding “hollow” plasma (where most of the electrons are concentrated in the near resonance region, as well as plasma ions, leaving a “hole” in the near axis zone [407]) in order to obtain the most desirable configurations maximizing the ion beam brilliance where the power is deposited in the plasma core.

Moreover, it will be possible to online evaluate in noninvasive mode the plasma structure change in the new shape of the plasma chamber and directly compare it with the conventional cylindrical one, through high resolution spectrally-resolved X-ray imaging. This technique, by means of a X-ray pin-hole camera setup, represents a powerful method for obtaining structural information on the plasma and for investigating the deep plasma dynamics [408, 409]. Recently, both the X-ray imaging setup [410] and the algorithm of analysis [411] have been updated and improved to remarkably increase signal-to-noise ratio at relatively high pumping RF power mode (up to 200 W in compact traps). In addition, this system, with new collimation and active shuttering methods for soft X and hard X spectroscopy/tomography, which could be executed in a midterm time range (5 years), is a very useful for the study of magnetized plasmas for fusion in compact traps and reactors (TOKAMAK).

**Acknowledgements** We thank S. Piantelli and G. Verde for carefully reading this manuscript.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Catania within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

**Data Availability Statement** No data associated in the manuscript.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

1. C. Broggini, O. Straniero, M.G.F. Taiuti, G. de Angelis, G. Benzoni, G.E. Bruno, S. Bufalino, G. Cardella, N. Colonna, M. Contalbrigo, G. Cosentino, S. Cristallo, C. Curceanu, E. De Filippo, R. Depalo, A. Di Leva, A. Feliciello, S. Gammino, A. Galatà, M. La Cognata, R. Lea, S. Leoni, I. Lombardo, V. Manzari, D. Mascali, C. Massimi, A. Mengoni, D. Mengoni, D.R. Napoli, S. Palmerini, S. Piano, S. Pirrone, R.G. Pizzone, G. Politi, P. Prati, G. Prete, P. Russotto, G. Tagliente, G.M. Urciuoli, Experimental nuclear astrophysics in Italy. Nuovo Cim. Riv. Ser. 42, 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncr/i2019-10157-1. arXiv:1902.05262 [nucl-ex]

2. A. Badalà, M. La Cognata, R. Nania, M. Osipenko, S. Piantelli, R. Turrisi, L. Barion, S. Capra, D. Carbone, F. Carnesecchi, E.A.R. Casula, C. Chatterjee, G.F. Ciani, R. Depalo, A. Di Nitto, A. Fantini, A. Goasduff, G.L. Guardo, A.C. Kraan, A. Manna, L. Marsicano, N.S. Martorana, L. Morales-Gallegos, E. Naselli, A. Scordo, S. Valdré, G. Volpe, Trends in particle and nuclei identification techniques in nuclear physics experiments. Nuovo Cim. Riv. Ser. 45(3), 189-277 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40766-021-00028-5
3. L. Calabretta et al., Commissioning of the K800 INFN Cyclotron, in *14th International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications* (1996), p. 02

4. F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, M. Bondì, D. Carbone, A. Cunsolo, A. Foti, Heavy-ion double charge exchange reactions: a tool toward 0 $vββ$ nuclear matrix elements. Eur. Phys. J. A **51**, 145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2015-15145-5. arXiv:1511.03858 [nucl-ex]

5. F. Cappuzzello et al., The numen project: nuclear matrix elements for neutrino-less double beta decay. Eur. Phys. J. A **54**(5), 72 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12509-3

6. A. Calanna, L. Calabretta, G. Cuttone, G. Dagostino, A. Radovinsky, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, Proposal to increase the extracted beam power from the LNS-INFN superconducting cyclotron, in *13th International Conference on Heavy Ion Accelerator Technology* (2016), pp. 1–03. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-HIAT2015-MOA1C03

7. L. Calabretta, A. Calanna, G. Cuttone, G. D'Agostino, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, Upgrade of the LNS superconducting cyclotron for beam power higher than 2–5 kW (21), 7–10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2016-MOA02. Proc. of International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (Cyclotrons'16), Zurich, Switzerland, September 11–16, 2016

8. A. Calanna, High-intensity extraction from the superconducting cyclotron at LNS-INFN. Nuovo Cim. C **40**(2), 101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2017-17101-y

9. G. D'Agostino, L. Calabretta, W. Kleeven, D. Rifuggiato, A central region upgrade of the k800 superconducting cyclotron at INFN-LNS, in *Proceeding of the 10th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2019)* (2019), p. 023. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2019-TUPTS023

10. L. Neri, L. Allegra, L. Calabretta, G. Costa, G. D'Agostino, G. Gallo, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, G. Torrisi, 3D magnetic optimization of the new extraction channel for the LNS superconducting cyclotron, in *22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (CYC2019)* (2020), p. 014. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2019-MOP014

11. G. Gallo, L. Allegra, L. Calabretta, A. Caruso, G. Costa, E. Messina, M. Musumeci, D. Rifuggiato, E. Zappalà, Mechanical Modifications of the median plane for the superconducting cyclotron upgrade, in *22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (CYC2019)* (2020), p. 013. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2019-MOP013

12. A. Caruso, The RF system of the K-800 superconducting cyclotron at INFN-LNS, 1–5, in *Proc. of Indian Particle Accelerator Conference, Nov 19–22, 2013, VECC, Kolkata* (2013)

13. A.C. Caruso, F. Caruso, A. Longhitano, A. Spartà, G. Primadei, J. Sura, Hybrid configuration, solid state-tube, revamps an obsolete tube amplifier for the INFB K-800 superconducting cyclotron, in *Proc. of International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (Cyclotrons'16), Zurich, Switzerland, September 11–16, 2016* (2017), pp. 263–266. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2016-WEB02

14. A. Tumino, C. Spitaleri, M. La Cognata et al., Publisher correction: an increase in the $^{12}$C + $^{12}$C fusion rate from resonances at astrophysical energies. Nature **561**(7721), 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0269-x

15. M. La Cognata, S. Palmerini, P. Adsley, F. Hammache, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, R. Alba, S. Cherubini, F. Dell'Agli, G.L. Guardo, M. Gulino, L. Lamia, D. Lattuada, C. Maiolino, A. Oliva, R.G. Pizzone, P.M. Prajapati, S. Romano, D. Santonocito, R. Spartà, M.L. Sergi, A. Tumino, Exploring the astrophysical energy range of the $^{27}$Al($p,\alpha$)$^{24}$Mg reaction: a new recommended reaction rate. Phys. Lett. B **826**, 136917 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136917

16. P. Russotto et al., Status and perspectives of the INFN-LNS in-flight fragment separator. J. Phys.: Confer. Ser. **1014**(1), 012016 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1014/1/012016

17. A.D. Russo, L. Calabretta, G. Cardella, P. Russotto, Preliminary design of the new FRAgment In-flight SEparator (FRAISE). Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B **463**, 418–420 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.04.037

18. N.S. Martorana, Status of the FraISe facility and diagnostics system. Il Nuovo Cim. C **44**, 1–10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2021-21001-2

19. R. Anne, D. Bazin, A.C. Mueller, J.C. Jacmart, M. Langevin, The achromatic spectrometer LISE at GANIL. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A **257**, 215–232 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(87)90741-8

20. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone et al., The numen project: nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double beta decay. Eur. Phys. J. A **54**(5), 72 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12509-3

21. O.B. Tarasov, D. Bazin, Lise++: Radioactive beam production with in-flight separators. Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B: Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms **266**(19), 4657–4664 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2008.05.110. Proceedings of the XVth International Conference on Electromagnetic Isotope Separators and Techniques Related to their Applications

22. G. Prete, The LNL radioactive beam facility. Scholarpedia **5**(5), 9751 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.9751. Revision #143504

23. A. Pagano, Studies of nuclear reactions and time scale with the $4\pi$ detector CHIMERA. Nucl. Phys. News **22**(1), 28 (2012). http://www.nupecc.org/npn/npn221.pdf

24. E.V. Pagano et al., Status and perspective of FARCOS: a new correlator array for nuclear reaction studies. EPJ Web Confer. **117**, 10008 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201611710008

25. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, The MAGNEX spectrometer: results and perspectives. Eur. Phys. J. A **52**, 167 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16167-1

26. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, L. Calabretta, D. Calvo, D. Carbone et al., The NUMEN technical design report. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **36**(30), 2130018–290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X21300180

27. D. Mascali, D. Santonocito et al., A novel approach to beta-decay: Pandora, a new experimental setup for future in-plasma measurements. Universe **8**, 80 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8020080

28. Y. Litvinov et al., Beta decay of highly charged ions. Rep. Progr. Phys. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/016301

29. F. Bosch et al., Observation of bound-state beta⁻ decay of fully ionized $^{187}$Re: $^{187}$Re–$^{187}$Os cosmochronometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190

30. G. Mauro et al., An innovative superconducting magnetic trap for probing β-decay in plasmas. Front. Phys. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.931953

31. E. Naselli et al., Multidiagnostics setups for magnetoplasmas devoted to astrophysics and nuclear astrophysics research in compact traps. J. Instrum. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.935728

32. E. Naselli et al., Design study of a HPGe detector array for β-decay investigation in laboratory ECR plasmas. Front. Phys. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.935728

33. D. Mascali, D. Santonocito, M. Busso, A. Galatà, F. Odorici, G. Torrisi, others, TDR PANDORA_Gr3 plasma for astrophysics. Nucl. Decays Observ. Radiat. Archaeom (2021). https://pandora.infn.it/public/pandora-tdr

34. L. Torrisi, Tantalum ions produced by 1064 nm pulsed laser irradiation. J. Appl. Phys. **91**, 4685 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1446660

35. I. Bombaci, U. Lombardo, Asymmetric nuclear matter equation of state. Phys. Rev. C **44**, 1892–1900 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.44.1892

36. B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, C.M. Ko, Recent progress and new challenges in isospin physics with heavy-ion reactions. Phys. Rep. **464**(4), 113–281 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.04.005
3. L. Calabretta et al., Commissioning of the K800 INFN Cyclotron, in *14th International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications* (1996), p. 02

4. F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, M. Bondì, D. Carbone, A. Cunsolo, A. Foti, Heavy-ion double charge exchange reactions: a tool toward 0 $v\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements. Eur. Phys. J. A **51**, 145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2015-15145-5. arXiv:1511.03858 [nucl-ex]

5. F. Cappuzzello et al., The numen project: nuclear matrix elements for neutrino-less double beta decay. Eur. Phys. J. A **54**(5), 72 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12509-3

6. A. Calanna, L. Calabretta, G. Cuttone, G. Dagostino, A. Radovinsky, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, Proposal to increase the extracted beam power from the LNS-INFN superconducting cyclotron, in *13th International Conference on Heavy Ion Accelerator Technology* (2016), pp. 1–03. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-HIAT2015-MOA1C03

7. L. Calabretta, A. Calanna, G. Cuttone, G. D'Agostino, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, Upgrade of the LNS superconducting cyclotron for beam power higher than 2–5 kW (21), 7–10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2016-MOA02. Proc. of International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (Cyclotrons'16), Zurich, Switzerland, September 11–16, 2016

8. A. Calanna, High-intensity extraction from the superconducting cyclotron at LNS-INFN. Nuovo Cim. C **40**(2), 101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2017-17101-y

9. G. D'Agostino, L. Calabretta, W. Kleeven, D. Rifuggiato, A central region upgrade of the k800 superconducting cyclotron at INFN-LNS, in *Proceeding of the 10th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2019)* (2019), p. 023. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2019-TUPTS023

10. L. Neri, L. Allegra, L. Calabretta, G. Costa, G. D'Agostino, G. Gallo, D. Rifuggiato, A.D. Russo, G. Torrisi, 3D magnetic optimization of the new extraction channel for the LNS superconducting cyclotron, in *22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (CYC2019)* (2020), p. 014. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2019-MOP014

11. G. Gallo, L. Allegra, L. Calabretta, A. Caruso, G. Costa, E. Messina, M. Musumeci, D. Rifuggiato, E. Zappalà, Mechanical Modifications of the median plane for the superconducting cyclotron upgrade, in *22nd International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (CYC2019)* (2020), p. 013. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2019-MOP013

12. A. Caruso, The RF system of the K-800 superconducting cyclotron at INFN-LNS, 1–5, in *Proc. of Indian Particle Accelerator Conference, Nov 19–22, 2013, VECC, Kolkata* (2013)

13. A.C. Caruso, F. Caruso, A. Longhitano, A. Spartà, G. Primadei, J. Sura, Hybrid configuration, solid state-tube, revamps an obsolete tube amplifier for the INFB K-800 superconducting cyclotron, in *Proc. of International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications (Cyclotrons'16), Zurich, Switzerland, September 11–16, 2016* (2017), pp. 263–266. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-Cyclotrons2016-WEB02

14. A. Tumino, C. Spitaleri, M. La Cognata et al., Publisher correction: an increase in the $^{12}$C + $^{12}$C fusion rate from resonances at astrophysical energies. Nature **561**(7721), 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0269-x

15. M. La Cognata, S. Palmerini, P. Adsley, F. Hammache, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, R. Alba, S. Cherubini, F. Dell'Agli, G.L. Guardo, M. Gulino, L. Lamia, D. Lattuada, C. Maiolino, A. Oliva, R.G. Pizzone, P.M. Prajapati, S. Romano, D. Santonocito, R. Spartà, M.L. Sergi, A. Tumino, Exploring the astrophysical energy range of the $^{27}$Al($p,\alpha$)$^{24}$Mg reaction: a new recommended reaction rate. Phys. Lett. B **826**, 136917 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136917

16. P. Russotto et al., Status and perspectives of the INFN-LNS in-flight fragment separator. J. Phys.: Confer. Ser. **1014**(1), 012016 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1014/1/012016

17. A.D. Russo, L. Calabretta, G. Cardella, P. Russotto, Preliminary design of the new FRAgment In-flight SEparator (FRAISE). Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B **463**, 418–420 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.04.037

18. N.S. Martorana, Status of the FraISe facility and diagnostics system. Il Nuovo Cim. C **44**, 1–10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2021-21001-2

19. R. Anne, D. Bazin, A.C. Mueller, J.C. Jacmart, M. Langevin, The achromatic spectrometer LISE at GANIL. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A **257**, 215–232 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(87)90741-8

20. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone et al., The numen project: nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double beta decay. Eur. Phys. J. A **54**(5), 72 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12509-3

21. O.B. Tarasov, D. Bazin, Lise++: Radioactive beam production with in-flight separators. Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B: Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms **266**(19), 4657–4664 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2008.05.110. Proceedings of the XVth International Conference on Electromagnetic Isotope Separators and Techniques Related to their Applications

22. G. Prete, The LNL radioactive beam facility. Scholarpedia **5**(5), 9751 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.9751. Revision #143504

23. A. Pagano, Studies of nuclear reactions and time scale with the $4\pi$ detector CHIMERA. Nucl. Phys. News **22**(1), 28 (2012). http://www.nupecc.org/npn/npn221.pdf

24. E.V. Pagano et al., Status and perspective of FARCOS: a new correlator array for nuclear reaction studies. EPJ Web Confer. **117**, 10008 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201611710008

25. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, The MAGNEX spectrometer: results and perspectives. Eur. Phys. J. A **52**, 167 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16167-1

26. F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi, L. Calabretta, D. Calvo, D. Carbone et al., The NUMEN technical design report. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **36**(30), 2130018–290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X21300180

27. D. Mascali, D. Santonocito et al., A novel approach to beta-decay: Pandora, a new experimental setup for future in-plasma measurements. Universe **8**, 80 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8020080

28. Y. Litvinov et al., Beta decay of highly charged ions. Rep. Progr. Phys. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/016301

29. F. Bosch et al., Observation of bound-state beta⁻ decay of fully ionized $^{187}$Re: $^{187}$Re–$^{187}$Os cosmochronometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190

30. G. Mauro et al., An innovative superconducting magnetic trap for probing β-decay in plasmas. Front. Phys. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.931953

31. E. Naselli et al., Multidiagnostics setups for magnetoplasmas devoted to astrophysics and nuclear astrophysics research in compact traps. J. Instrum. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.935728

32. E. Naselli et al., Design study of a HPGe detector array for β-decay investigation in laboratory ECR plasmas. Front. Phys. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.935728

33. D. Mascali, D. Santonocito, M. Busso, A. Galatà, F. Odorici, G. Torrisi, others, TDR PANDORA_Gr3 plasma for astrophysics. Nucl. Decays Observ. Radiat. Archaeom (2021). https://pandora.infn.it/public/pandora-tdr

34. L. Torrisi, Tantalum ions produced by 1064 nm pulsed laser irradiation. J. Appl. Phys. **91**, 4685 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1446660

35. I. Bombaci, U. Lombardo, Asymmetric nuclear matter equation of state. Phys. Rev. C **44**, 1892–1900 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.44.1892

36. B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, C.M. Ko, Recent progress and new challenges in isospin physics with heavy-ion reactions. Phys. Rep. **464**(4), 113–281 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.04.005
37. B.-A. Li, À. Ramos, G. Verde, I. Vidaña, Topical issue on nuclear symmetry energy. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**, 9 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14009-x

38. M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, The nuclear symmetry energy. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **91**, 203–258 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.06.006

39. C. Mondal, B.K. Agrawal, M. Centelles, G. Colò, X. Roca-Maza, N. Paar, X. Viñas, S.K. Singh, S.K. Patra, Model dependence of the neutron-skin thickness on the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. C **93**, 064303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064303

40. X. Viñas, M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, M. Warda, Density dependence of the symmetry energy from neutron skin thickness in finite nuclei. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**(2), 27 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14027-8

41. A. Tamii et al., Complete electric dipole response and the neutron skin in $^{208}$Pb. Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 062502 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.062502

42. D. Adhikari et al., Precision determination of the neutral weak form factor of $^{48}$Ca. Phys. Rev. Lett. **129**, 042501 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.042501

43. V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, M. Di Toro, Reaction dynamics with exotic nuclei. Phys. Rep. **410**(5), 335–466 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.12.004

44. B.P. Abbott et al., Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW 170817. Phys. Rev. X **9**, 011001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

45. B.P. Abbott, GW170817: measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 161101 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

46. J. Piekarewicz, F.J. Fattoyev, Impact of the neutron star crust on the tidal polarizability. Phys. Rev. C **99**, 045802 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.045802

47. G.F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vidaña, J.-B. Wei, Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **120**, 103879 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

48. M.B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, M. Famiano, Z. Li, W.G. Lynch, A.W. Steiner, Constraints on the density dependence of the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 122701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.122701

49. P. Russotto, S. Gannon, S. Kupny, P. Lasko et al., Results of the ASY-EOS experiment at GSI: the symmetry energy at suprasaturation density. Phys. Rev. C **94**, 034608 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034608

50. B.T. Reed, F.J. Fattoyev, C.J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, Implications of PREX-2 on the equation of state of neutron-rich matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 172503 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172503

51. L.-W. Chen, C.M. Ko, B.-A. Li, J. Xu, Density slope of the nuclear symmetry energy from the neutron skin thickness of heavy nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **82**, 024321 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024321

52. X. Roca-Maza, X. Viñas, M. Centelles, B.K. Agrawal, G. Colò, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, D. Vretenar, Neutron skin thickness from the measured electric dipole polarizability in $^{68}$Ni, $^{120}$Sn, and $^{208}$Pb. Phys. Rev. C **92**, 064304 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064304

53. P. Danielewicz, J. Lee, Symmetry energy II: Isobaric analog states. Nucl. Phys. A **922**, 1–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.11.005

54. A.W. Steiner, J.M. Lattimer, E.F. Brown, The neutron star mass-radius relation and the equation of state of dense matter. Astrophys J **765**(1), 5 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/15

55. A. Carbone, G. Colò, A. Bracco, L.-G. Cao, P.F. Bortignon, F. Camera, O. Wieland, Constraints on the symmetry energy and neutron skins from pygmy resonances in $^{68}$Ni and $^{132}$Sn. Phys. Rev. C **81**, 041301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.041301

56. T. Li, U. Garg et al., Isotopic dependence of the giant monopole resonance in the even-$A^{112-124}$Sn isotopes and the asymmetry term in nuclear incompressibility. Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 162503 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.162503

57. M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, S. Typel, Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars. Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 015007 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

58. D. Adhikari et al., Accurate determination of the neutron skin thickness of $^{208}$Pb through parity-violation in electron scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 172502 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

59. W.G. Lynch, M.B. Tsang, Decoding the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy. Phys. Lett. B **830**, 137098 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137098. arXiv:2106.10119

60. G.F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vidaña, J.-B. Wei, A modern view of the equation of state in nuclear and neutron star matter. Symmetry (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030400

61. C. Fuchs, H.H. Wolter, Modelization of the EOS. Eur. Phys. J. A (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2005-10313-x

62. W. Trautmann, High density with elliptic flows. AIP Confer. Proc. **2127**, 020003 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5117793

63. B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, W.-J. Xie, N.-B. Zhang, Progress in constraining nuclear symmetry energy using neutron star observables since GW170817. Universe **7**(6), 182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7060182

64. J. Estee, W.G. Lynch, C.Y. Tsang, J. Barney, G. Jhang, M.B. Tsang, R. Wang, M. Kaneko, J.W. Lee, T. Isobe, M. Kurata-Nishimura, T. Murakami et al., Probing the symmetry energy with the spectral pion ratio. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 162701 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162701

65. M.D. Cozma, Y. Leifels, W. Trautmann, Q. Li, P. Russotto, Toward a model-independent constraint of the high-density dependence of the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. C **88**, 044912 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044912

66. S. Huth, P.T.H. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le Fèvre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M.W. Coughlin, C. Van Den Broeck, Constraining neutron-star matter with microscopic and macroscopic collisions. Nature **606**(7913), 276–280 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

67. P. Russotto, M.D. Cozma, E. De Filippo, A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, J. Łukasik, Studies of the equation of state of nuclear matter by heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energy in the multi-messenger era. La Riv. del Nuovo Cim. **46**, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40766-023-00039-4

68. C.J. Horowitz, E.F. Brown, Y. Kim, W.G. Lynch, R. Michaels, A. Ono, J. Piekarewicz, M.B. Tsang, H.H. Wolter, A way forward in the study of the symmetry energy: experiment, theory, and observation. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **41**(9), 093001 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/41/9/093001

69. M.B. Tsang, J.R. Stone, F. Camera, P. Danielewicz, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, C.J. Horowitz, J. Lee, W.G. Lynch, Z. Kohley, R. Lemmon, P. Möller, T. Murakami, S. Riordan, X. Roca-Maza, F. Sammarruca, A.W. Steiner, I. Vidaña, S.J. Yennello, Constraints on the symmetry energy and neutron skins from experiments and theory. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 015803 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.015803

70. J.B. Natowitz, G. Röpke, S. Typel, D. Blaschke, A. Bonasera, K. Hagel, T. Klähn, S. Kowalski, L. Qin, S. Shlomo, R. Wada, H.H. Wolter, Symmetry energy of dilute warm nuclear matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 202501 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.202501

71. D.V. Shetty, S.J. Yennello, G.A. Souliotis, Density dependence of the symmetry energy and the nuclear equation of state: a dynamical and statistical model perspective. Phys. Rev. C **76**, 024606 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.024606

72. D.D.S. Coupland, M. Youngs, Z. Chajecki, W.G. Lynch, M.B. Tsang, Y.X. Zhang et al., Probing effective nucleon masses with heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C **94**, 011601 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.011601
37. B.-A. Li, À. Ramos, G. Verde, I. Vidaña, Topical issue on nuclear symmetry energy. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**, 9 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14009-x

38. M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, The nuclear symmetry energy. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **91**, 203–258 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.06.006

39. C. Mondal, B.K. Agrawal, M. Centelles, G. Colò, X. Roca-Maza, N. Paar, X. Viñas, S.K. Singh, S.K. Patra, Model dependence of the neutron-skin thickness on the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. C **93**, 064303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064303

40. X. Viñas, M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, M. Warda, Density dependence of the symmetry energy from neutron skin thickness in finite nuclei. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**(2), 27 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14027-8

41. A. Tamii et al., Complete electric dipole response and the neutron skin in $^{208}$Pb. Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 062502 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.062502

42. D. Adhikari et al., Precision determination of the neutral weak form factor of $^{48}$Ca. Phys. Rev. Lett. **129**, 042501 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.042501

43. V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, M. Di Toro, Reaction dynamics with exotic nuclei. Phys. Rep. **410**(5), 335–466 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.12.004

44. B.P. Abbott et al., Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW 170817. Phys. Rev. X **9**, 011001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

45. B.P. Abbott, GW170817: measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. **121**, 161101 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

46. J. Piekarewicz, F.J. Fattoyev, Impact of the neutron star crust on the tidal polarizability. Phys. Rev. C **99**, 045802 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.045802

47. G.F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vidaña, J.-B. Wei, Neutron stars and the nuclear equation of state. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **120**, 103879 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

48. M.B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, M. Famiano, Z. Li, W.G. Lynch, A.W. Steiner, Constraints on the density dependence of the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 122701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.122701

49. P. Russotto, S. Gannon, S. Kupny, P. Lasko et al., Results of the ASY-EOS experiment at GSI: the symmetry energy at suprasaturation density. Phys. Rev. C **94**, 034608 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034608

50. B.T. Reed, F.J. Fattoyev, C.J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, Implications of PREX-2 on the equation of state of neutron-rich matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 172503 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172503

51. L.-W. Chen, C.M. Ko, B.-A. Li, J. Xu, Density slope of the nuclear symmetry energy from the neutron skin thickness of heavy nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **82**, 024321 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024321

52. X. Roca-Maza, X. Viñas, M. Centelles, B.K. Agrawal, G. Colò, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, D. Vretenar, Neutron skin thickness from the measured electric dipole polarizability in $^{68}$Ni, $^{120}$Sn, and $^{208}$Pb. Phys. Rev. C **92**, 064304 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064304

53. P. Danielewicz, J. Lee, Symmetry energy II: Isobaric analog states. Nucl. Phys. A **922**, 1–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.11.005

54. A.W. Steiner, J.M. Lattimer, E.F. Brown, The neutron star mass-radius relation and the equation of state of dense matter. Astrophys J **765**(1), 5 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/15

55. A. Carbone, G. Colò, A. Bracco, L.-G. Cao, P.F. Bortignon, F. Camera, O. Wieland, Constraints on the symmetry energy and neutron skins from pygmy resonances in $^{68}$Ni and $^{132}$Sn. Phys. Rev. C **81**, 041301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.041301

56. T. Li, U. Garg et al., Isotopic dependence of the giant monopole resonance in the even-$A^{112-124}$Sn isotopes and the asymmetry term in nuclear incompressibility. Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 162503 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.162503

57. M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, S. Typel, Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars. Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 015007 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

58. D. Adhikari et al., Accurate determination of the neutron skin thickness of $^{208}$Pb through parity-violation in electron scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 172502 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

59. W.G. Lynch, M.B. Tsang, Decoding the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy. Phys. Lett. B **830**, 137098 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137098. arXiv:2106.10119

60. G.F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vidaña, J.-B. Wei, A modern view of the equation of state in nuclear and neutron star matter. Symmetry (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030400

61. C. Fuchs, H.H. Wolter, Modelization of the EOS. Eur. Phys. J. A (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2005-10313-x

62. W. Trautmann, High density with elliptic flows. AIP Confer. Proc. **2127**, 020003 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5117793

63. B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, W.-J. Xie, N.-B. Zhang, Progress in constraining nuclear symmetry energy using neutron star observables since GW170817. Universe **7**(6), 182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7060182

64. J. Estee, W.G. Lynch, C.Y. Tsang, J. Barney, G. Jhang, M.B. Tsang, R. Wang, M. Kaneko, J.W. Lee, T. Isobe, M. Kurata-Nishimura, T. Murakami et al., Probing the symmetry energy with the spectral pion ratio. Phys. Rev. Lett. **126**, 162701 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162701

65. M.D. Cozma, Y. Leifels, W. Trautmann, Q. Li, P. Russotto, Toward a model-independent constraint of the high-density dependence of the symmetry energy. Phys. Rev. C **88**, 044912 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044912

66. S. Huth, T.P.H. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le Fèvre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M.W. Coughlin, C. Van Den Broeck, Constraining neutron-star matter with microscopic and macroscopic collisions. Nature **606**(7913), 276–280 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

67. P. Russotto, M.D. Cozma, E. De Filippo, A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, J. Łukasik, Studies of the equation of state of nuclear matter by heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energy in the multi-messenger era. La Riv. del Nuovo Cim. **46**, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40766-023-00039-4

68. C.J. Horowitz, E.F. Brown, Y. Kim, W.G. Lynch, R. Michaels, A. Ono, J. Piekarewicz, M.B. Tsang, H.H. Wolter, A way forward in the study of the symmetry energy: experiment, theory, and observation. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **41**(9), 093001 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/41/9/093001

69. M.B. Tsang, J.R. Stone, F. Camera, P. Danielewicz, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, C.J. Horowitz, J. Lee, W.G. Lynch, Z. Kohley, R. Lemmon, P. Möller, T. Murakami, S. Riordan, X. Roca-Maza, F. Sammarruca, A.W. Steiner, I. Vidaña, S.J. Yennello, Constraints on the symmetry energy and neutron skins from experiments and theory. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 015803 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.015803

70. J.B. Natowitz, G. Röpke, S. Typel, D. Blaschke, A. Bonasera, K. Hagel, T. Klähn, S. Kowalski, L. Qin, S. Shlomo, R. Wada, H.H. Wolter, Symmetry energy of dilute warm nuclear matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 202501 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.202501

71. D.V. Shetty, S.J. Yennello, G.A. Souliotis, Density dependence of the symmetry energy and the nuclear equation of state: a dynamical and statistical model perspective. Phys. Rev. C **76**, 024606 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.024606

72. D.D.S. Coupland, M. Youngs, Z. Chajecki, W.G. Lynch, M.B. Tsang, Y.X. Zhang et al., Probing effective nucleon masses with heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C **94**, 011601 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.011601
73. Z.Y. Sun, M.B. Tsang, W.G. Lynch, G. Verde, F. Amorini, L. Andronenko, M. Andronenko, G. Cardella, M. Chatterje, P. Danielewicz, E. De Filippo, P. Dinh, E. Galichet, E. Geraci, H. Hua, E. La Guidara, G. Lanzalone, H. Liu, F. Lu, S. Lukyanov, C. Maiolino, A. Pagano, S. Piantelli, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F. Porto, F. Rizzo, P. Russotto, D. Santonocito, Y.X. Zhang, Isospin diffusion and equilibration for Sn + Sn collisions at E/A = 35 MeV. Phys. Rev. C 82, 051603 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.051603

74. A. Camaiani, G. Casini, S. Piantelli, A. Ono, E. Bonnet et al., Isospin diffusion measurement from the direct detection of a quasiprojectile remnant. Phys. Rev. C 103, 014605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014605

75. E. De Filippo, A. Pagano, P. Russotto et al., Correlations between emission timescale of fragments and isospin dynamics in $^{124}$Sn+$^{64}$Ni and $^{112}$Sn+$^{58}$Ni reactions at 35 A MeV. Phys. Rev. C 86, 014610 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014610

76. S. Hudan, A.B. McIntosh, R.T. de Souza et al., Tracking saddle-to-scission dynamics using N/Z in projectile breakup reactions. Phys. Rev. C 86, 021603 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.021603

77. S. Piantelli, G. Casini, A. Ono, G. Poggi, G. Pastore et al., Isospin transport phenomena for the systems $^{80}$Kr+$^{40,48}$Ca at 35 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C 103, 014603 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014603

78. M. Colonna, Collision dynamics at medium and relativistic energies. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113, 103775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103775

79. A.B. McIntosh, S.J. Yennello, Interplay of neutron-proton equilibration and nuclear dynamics. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 108, 103707 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.06.001

80. J. Rizzo, M. Colonna, V. Baran, M. Di Toro, H.H. Wolter, M. Zielinska-Pfabe, Isospin dynamics in peripheral heavy ion collisions at Fermi energies. Nucl. Phys. A 806(1), 79-104 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.307

81. H. Wolter, M. Colonna, D. Cozma, P. Danielewicz, C.M. Ko, R. Kumar, A. Ono, M.B. Tsang, J. Xu, Y.-X. Zhang et al., Transport model comparison studies of intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103962 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103962

82. E. De Filippo, A. Pagano, Experimental effects of dynamics and thermodynamics in nuclear reactions on the symmetry energy as seen by the CHIMERA 4π detector. Eur. Phys. J. A 50(2), 32 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14032-y

83. E. Geraci et al., Highlights from CHIMERA Collaboration. Nuovo Cim. C 45, 44 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22044-5. Proceedings of the IWM-EC conference, GANIL Nov. 23-26 2021

84. I. Lombardo et al., Isospin transport effects in nuclear reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C 82, 014608 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.014608

85. A. Pagano, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, E.V. Pagano, P. Russotto, K. Siwek-Wilczyńska et al., Nuclear neck-density determination at Fermi energy with CHIMERA detector. Eur. Phys. J. A 56(4), 102 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00105-z

86. P. Russotto, E. De Filippo, E.V. Pagano et al., Dynamical versus statistical production of intermediate mass fragments at Fermi energies. Eur. Phys. J. A 56(1), 12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-019-00011-z

87. P. Russotto, E. De Filippo, A. Pagano et al., Production cross sections for intermediate mass fragments from dynamical and statistical decay of projectile-like fragments in $^{124}$Sn+$^{64}$Ni and $^{112}$Sn+$^{58}$Ni collisions at 35 A MeV. Phys. Rev. C 91, 014610 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014610

88. A. Jedele, A.B. McIntosh, K. Hagel, M. Huang, L. Heilborn, Z. Kohley, L.W. May, E. McCleskey, M. Youngs, A. Zarrella, S.J. Yennello, Characterizing neutron-proton equilibration in nuclear reactions with subzeptosecond resolution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 062501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.062501

89. J.B. Natowitz, R. Wada, K. Hagel, T. Keutgen, M. Murray, A. Makeev, L. Qin, P. Smith, C. Hamilton, Caloric curves and critical behavior in nuclei. Phys. Rev. C 65, 034618 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034618

90. A.B. McIntosh, A. Bonasera, P. Cammarata, K. Hagel, L. Heilborn, Z. Kohley, J. Mabiala, L.W. May, P. Marini, A. Raphelt, G.A. Souliotis, S. Wuenschel, A. Zarrella, S.J. Yennello, Asymmetry dependence of the nuclear caloric curve. Phys. Lett. B 719(4), 337-340 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.073

91. S. Pirrone, G. Politi, B. Gnoffo, M. La Commara, E. De Filippo, P. Russotto, M. Trimarchi, M. Vigilante, M. Colonna, Sh.A. Kalandarov et al., Isospin influence on fragments production in $^{78}$Kr+$^{40}$Ca and $^{86}$Kr+$^{48}$Ca collisions at 10 MeV/nucleon. Eur. Phys. J. A 55(2), 22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12695-4

92. F. Amorini, G. Cardella, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, G. Lanzalone, L. Jun, A. Musumarra, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, F. Rizzo, W. Tian, S. Tudisco, Statistical and preequilibrium γ-ray emission in heavy ion reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C 69, 014608 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.014608

93. F. Amorini, G. Cardella, G. Giuliani, M. Papa et al., Isospin dependence of incomplete fusion reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 112701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.112701

94. G. Cardella, G. Giuliani, I. Lombardo, M. Papa et al., Effects of neutron richness on the behavior of nuclear systems at intermediate energies. Phys. Rev. C 85, 064609 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064609

95. M. Papa, T. Maruyama, A. Bonasera, Constrained molecular dynamics approach to fermionic systems. Phys. Rev. C 64, 024612 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.64.024612

96. M. Papa, I. Berceanu et al., Dipolar degrees of freedom and isospin equilibration processes in heavy ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C 91, 041601 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.041601

97. M. Papa, Many-body correlations in semiclassical molecular dynamics and Skyrme interaction. Phys. Rev. C 87, 014001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014001

98. E.V. Pagano et al., Measurements of pulse shape discrimination with EJ 299-33 plastic scintillator using heavy ion reaction. Nucl. Instr. Methods A 905, 47-52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.07.034

99. E.V. Pagano, L. Auditore, G. Cardella, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, B. Gnoffo, G. Lanzalone, C. Maiolino, N.S. Martorana, A. Pagano, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F. Rizzo, P. Russotto, M. Trimarchi, The NARCoS project: efficiency estimation and the cross talk problem studied through Monte Carlo simulations. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. 1643(1), 012037 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1643/1/012037

100. Project ANCHISE (Array for Neutron and Charged particle detection with High Linear momentum Selection) funded (PRIN2020, grant. no. 2020H8YFRE) by MUR (Ministry for Universities and Research, Italy)

101. R. Bougault, G. Poggi, S. Barlini et al., The FAZIA project in Europe: R & D phase. Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 47 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14047-4

102. C. Ciampi, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, G. Pasquali, J. Quicray et al., First results from the INDRA-FAZIA apparatus on isospin diffusion in $^{58,64}$Ni+$^{58,64}$Ni systems at Fermi energies. Phys. Rev. C 106, 024603 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024603

103. A. Ono, Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy-ion collisions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 139-179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.11.001
73. Z.Y. Sun, M.B. Tsang, W.G. Lynch, G. Verde, F. Amorini, L. Andronenko, M. Andronenko, G. Cardella, M. Chatterje, P. Danielewicz, E. De Filippo, P. Dinh, E. Galichet, E. Geraci, H. Hua, E. La Guidara, G. Lanzalone, H. Liu, F. Lu, S. Lukyanov, C. Maiolino, A. Pagano, S. Piantelli, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F. Porto, F. Rizzo, P. Russotto, D. Santonocito, Y.X. Zhang, Isospin diffusion and equilibration for Sn + Sn collisions at E/A = 35 MeV. Phys. Rev. C **82**, 051603 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.051603

74. A. Camaiani, G. Casini, S. Piantelli, A. Ono, E. Bonnet et al., Isospin diffusion measurement from the direct detection of a quasiprojectile remnant. Phys. Rev. C **103**, 014605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014605

75. E. De Filippo, A. Pagano, P. Russotto et al., Correlations between emission timescale of fragments and isospin dynamics in $^{124}$Sn+$^{64}$Ni and $^{112}$Sn+$^{58}$Ni reactions at 35 A MeV. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 014610 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014610

76. S. Hudan, A.B. McIntosh, R.T. de Souza et al., Tracking saddle-to-scission dynamics using N/Z in projectile breakup reactions. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 021603 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.021603

77. S. Piantelli, G. Casini, A. Ono, G. Poggi, G. Pastore et al., Isospin transport phenomena for the systems $^{80}$Kr+$^{40,48}$Ca at 35 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C **103**, 014603 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014603

78. M. Colonna, Collision dynamics at medium and relativistic energies. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **113**, 103775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103775

79. A.B. McIntosh, S.J. Yennello, Interplay of neutron-proton equilibration and nuclear dynamics. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **108**, 103707 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.06.001

80. J. Rizzo, M. Colonna, V. Baran, M. Di Toro, H.H. Wolter, M. Zielinska-Pfabe, Isospin dynamics in peripheral heavy ion collisions at Fermi energies. Nucl. Phys. A **806**(1), 79-104 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.307

81. H. Wolter, M. Colonna, D. Cozma, P. Danielewicz, C.M. Ko, R. Kumar, A. Ono, M.B. Tsang, J. Xu, Y.-X. Zhang et al., Transport model comparison studies of intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **125**, 103962 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103962

82. E. De Filippo, A. Pagano, Experimental effects of dynamics and thermodynamics in nuclear reactions on the symmetry energy as seen by the CHIMERA 4π detector. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**(2), 32 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14032-y

83. E. Geraci et al., Highlights from CHIMERA Collaboration. Nuovo Cim. C **45**, 44 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22044-5. Proceedings of the IWM-EC conference, GANIL Nov. 23-26 2021

84. I. Lombardo et al., Isospin transport effects in nuclear reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C **82**, 014608 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.014608

85. A. Pagano, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, E.V. Pagano, P. Russotto, K. Siwek-Wilczyńska et al., Nuclear neck-density determination at Fermi energy with CHIMERA detector. Eur. Phys. J. A **56**(4), 102 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00105-z

86. P. Russotto, E. De Filippo, E.V. Pagano et al., Dynamical versus statistical production of intermediate mass fragments at Fermi energies. Eur. Phys. J. A **56**(1), 12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-019-00011-z

87. P. Russotto, E. De Filippo, A. Pagano et al., Production cross sections for intermediate mass fragments from dynamical and statistical decay of projectile-like fragments in $^{124}$Sn+$^{64}$Ni and $^{112}$Sn+$^{58}$Ni collisions at 35 A MeV. Phys. Rev. C **91**, 014610 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014610

88. A. Jedele, A.B. McIntosh, K. Hagel, M. Huang, L. Heilborn, Z. Kohley, L.W. May, E. McCleskey, M. Youngs, A. Zarrella, S.J. Yennello, Characterizing neutron-proton equilibration in nuclear reactions with subzeptosecond resolution. Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 062501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.062501

89. J.B. Natowitz, R. Wada, K. Hagel, T. Keutgen, M. Murray, A. Makeev, L. Qin, P. Smith, C. Hamilton, Caloric curves and critical behavior in nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **65**, 034618 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034618

90. A.B. McIntosh, A. Bonasera, P. Cammarata, K. Hagel, L. Heilborn, Z. Kohley, J. Mabiala, L.W. May, P. Marini, A. Raphelt, G.A. Souliotis, S. Wuenschel, A. Zarrella, S.J. Yennello, Asymmetry dependence of the nuclear caloric curve. Phys. Lett. B **719**(4), 337-340 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.073

91. S. Pirrone, G. Politi, B. Gnoffo, M. La Commara, E. De Filippo, P. Russotto, M. Trimarchi, M. Vigilante, M. Colonna, Sh.A. Kalandarov et al., Isospin influence on fragments production in $^{78}$Kr+$^{40}$Ca and $^{86}$Kr+$^{48}$Ca collisions at 10 MeV/nucleon. Eur. Phys. J. A **55**(2), 22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12695-4

92. F. Amorini, G. Cardella, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, G. Lanzalone, L. Jun, A. Musumarra, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, F. Rizzo, W. Tian, S. Tudisco, Statistical and preequilibrium γ-ray emission in heavy ion reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. C **69**, 014608 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.014608

93. F. Amorini, G. Cardella, G. Giuliani, M. Papa et al., Isospin dependence of incomplete fusion reactions at 25 MeV/nucleon. Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 112701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.112701

94. G. Cardella, G. Giuliani, I. Lombardo, M. Papa et al., Effects of neutron richness on the behavior of nuclear systems at intermediate energies. Phys. Rev. C **85**, 064609 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064609

95. M. Papa, T. Maruyama, A. Bonasera, Constrained molecular dynamics approach to fermionic systems. Phys. Rev. C **64**, 024612 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.64.024612

96. M. Papa, I. Berceanu et al., Dipolar degrees of freedom and isospin equilibration processes in heavy ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C **91**, 041601 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.041601

97. M. Papa, Many-body correlations in semiclassical molecular dynamics and Skyrme interaction. Phys. Rev. C **87**, 014001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014001

98. E.V. Pagano et al., Measurements of pulse shape discrimination with EJ 299-33 plastic scintillator using heavy ion reaction. Nucl. Instr. Methods A **905**, 47-52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.07.034

99. E.V. Pagano, L. Auditore, G. Cardella, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, B. Gnoffo, G. Lanzalone, C. Maiolino, N.S. Martorana, A. Pagano, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F. Rizzo, P. Russotto, M. Trimarchi, The NARCoS project: efficiency estimation and the cross talk problem studied through Monte Carlo simulations. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. **1643**(1), 012037 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1643/1/012037

100. Project ANCHISE (Array for Neutron and Charged particle detection with High Linear momentum Selection) funded (PRIN2020, grant. no. 2020H8YFRE) by MUR (Ministry for Universities and Research, Italy)

101. R. Bougault, G. Poggi, S. Barlini et al., The FAZIA project in Europe: R & D phase. Eur. Phys. J. A **50**, 47 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14047-4

102. C. Ciampi, S. Piantelli, G. Casini, G. Pasquali, J. Quicray et al., First results from the INDRA-FAZIA apparatus on isospin diffusion in $^{58,64}$Ni+$^{58,64}$Ni systems at Fermi energies. Phys. Rev. C **106**, 024603 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024603

103. A. Ono, Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy-ion collisions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **105**, 139-179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.11.001
104. E. Plagnol, J. Łukasik et al., Onset of midvelocity emissions in symmetric heavy ion reactions. Phys. Rev. C **61**, 014606 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.014606

105. A. Rebillard-Soulié, D. Gruyer, G. Verde et al., Study of the Hoyle state in $^{12}$C produced by $^{20}$Ne+$^{12}$C reactions. Nuovo Cim. C **45**, 57 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22057-0. Proceedings of the IWM-EC conference, GANIL Nov. 23–26 2021

106. B. Borderie, A.R. Raduta, G. Ademard, M.F. Rivet, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, N. Le Neindre et al., Probing clustering in excited alpha-conjugate nuclei. Phys. Lett. B **755**, 475–480 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.061

107. G. Cardella, A. Bonasera, N.S. Martorana et al., Search for rare 3-α decays in the region of the Hoyle state of $^{12}$C. Nucl. Phys. A **1020**, 122395 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122395

108. J.A. Wheeler, Molecular viewpoints in nuclear structure. Phys. Rev. **52**, 1083–1106 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.52.1083

109. E. Wigner, On the structure of nuclei beyond oxygen. Phys. Rev. **51**, 947–958 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.51.947

110. Y. Kanada-En'yo, Y. Kawanami, Y. Taniguchi, M. Kimura, Cluster states in 13B. Progr. Theoret. Phys. **120**(5), 917–935 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.120.917

111. T. Suhara, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Cluster structures of excited states in $^{14}$C. Phys. Rev. C **82**(4), 044301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.044301

112. T. Baba, M. Kimura, Three-body decay of linear-chain states in $^{14}$C. Phys. Rev. C **95**(6), 064318 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064318

113. K.W. McVoy, Regge Poles and strong absorption in heavy-ion and α-nucleus scattering. Phys. Rev. C **3**, 1104–1117 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.3.1104

114. B. Zhou, M. Kimura, Q. Zhao, S.-h Shin, Microscopic calculations for Be isotopes within real-time evolution method. Eur. Phys. J. A **56**(11), 298 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00306-6

115. T. Ichikawa, N. Itagaki, Optimization of basis functions for multiconfiguration mixing using the replica exchange Monte Carlo method and its application to $^{12}$C. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 024314 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024314

116. M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En'yo, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, Microscopic clustering in light nuclei. Rev. Mod. Phys. **90**, 035004 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.035004

117. Y. Kanada-En'yo, H. Horiuchi, Structure of light unstable nuclei studied with antisymmetrized molecular dynamics. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. **142**, 205 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.142.205. arXiv:nucl-th/0107044

118. N. Itagaki, A.V. Afanasjev, D. Ray, Possibility of $^{14}$C cluster as a building block of medium-mass nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **101**, 034304 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034304

119. A.S. Demyanova, V.I. Starastin, A.N. Danilov, A.A. Ogloblin, S.V. Dmitriev, S.A. Goncharov, T.L. Belyaeva, V.A. Maslov, Y.G. Sobolev, W. Trzaska, P. Heikkinen, G.P. Gurov, N. Burtebaev, D. Janseitov, Possible neutron and proton halo structure in the isobaric analog states of A = 12 nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **102**, 054612 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.054612

120. Q. Zhao, Y. Suzuki, J. He, B. Zhou, M. Kimura, α clustering and neutron-skin thickness of carbon isotopes. Eur. Phys. J. A **57**(5), 157 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00465-0

121. R. Smith, J. Bishop, J. Hirst, T. Kokalova, C. Wheldon, The Hoyle Family: the search for alpha-condensate states in light nuclei. Few-Body Syst. **61**(2), 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-020-1545-5

122. V.M. Datar, S. Kumar, D.R. Chakrabarty, V. Nanal, E.T. Mirgule, A. Mitra, H.H. Oza, Direct observation of 4$^+$-to-2$^+$ gamma transition in $^8$Be. Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**(12), 122502 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.122502

123. G. Cardella, F. Fayela, N.S. Martorana, L. Acosta, A. Camaiani, E. De Filippo, N. Gelli, E. Geraci, B. Gnoffo, C. Guazzoni et al., Investigating γ-ray decay of excited $^{12}$C levels with a multifold coincidence analysis. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 064315 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064315

124. D.J. Marín-Lámbarri, R. Bijker, M. Freer, M. Gai, T. Kokalova, D.J. Parker, C. Wheldon, Evidence for triangular $D_{3h}$ symmetry in $^{12}$C. Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**(1), 012502 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.012502

125. M. Freer, The clustered nucleus-cluster structures in stable and unstable nuclei. Rep. Prog. Phys. **70**(12), 2149 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/12/r03

126. R. Bijker, F. Iachello, The algebraic cluster model: three-body clusters. Ann. Phys. **298**(2), 334–360 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2002.6255

127. R. Bijker, F. Iachello, Evidence for tetrahedral symmetry in $^{16}$O. Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**(15), 152501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.152501

128. P. Figuera, E.A. Maugeri et al., Development of an intense $^{10}$Be radioactive beam in 'off-line mode' at the Catania Tandem accelerator. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. A **972**, 164120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164120

129. W. von Oertzen, M. Freer, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Nuclear clusters and nuclear molecules. Phys. Rep. **432**(2), 43–113 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.07.001

130. A. Di Pietro, J. Fernández-García, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, S. Heinitz, M. Lattuada, D. Torresi, M. Alcorta, M.J. García Borge, T. Davinson et al., Exotic clustering investigation in $^{13}$B and $^{14}$C using RIBs. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis., C **41**, 186 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2018-18186-4

131. I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, G. Spadaccini, G. Verde, M. Vigilante, Spectroscopy of $^{13}$C above the α threshold with α+$^9$Be reactions at low energies. Phys. Rev. C **97**(3), 034320 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034320

132. D. Dell'Aquila, I. Lombardo, G. Verde, M. Vigilante, G. Ausanio, A. Ordine, M. Miranda, M. De Luca, R. Alba, L. Augey et al., OSCAR: A new modular device for the identification and correlation of low energy particles. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **877**, 227–237 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.09.046

133. D. Bardayan, Transfer reactions in nuclear astrophysics. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **43**(4), 043001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/4/043001

134. R.L. Kozub, D.H. Youngblood, Single-particle strengths for quasibound levels in $^{33}$Cl. Phys. Rev. C **5**(2), 413 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.5.413

135. P. Endt, Spectroscopic factors for single-nucleon transfer in the A = 21–44 region. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **19**(1), 23–61 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-640X(77)90008-0

136. M.B. Tsang, J. Lee, W.G. Lynch, Survey of ground state neutron spectroscopic factors from Li to Cr isotopes. Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**(22), 222501 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.222501

137. S. Gillespie, A. Parikh, C.J. Barton, T. Faestermann, J. José, R. Hertenberger, H.-F. Wirth, N. De Séréville, J.E. Riley, M. Williams, First measurement of the $^{34}$S(p, γ)$^{35}$Cl reaction rate through indirect methods for presolar nova grains. Phys. Rev. C **96**(2), 025801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.025801

138. I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, M. Cinausero, L.R. Gasques, M. Vigilante, V.A.B. Zagatto, S. Barlini, R. Bolzonella, M. Bruno, A. Buccola et al., Study of the $^{33}$Cl spectroscopic factors via the $^{32}$S(³He, d)$^{33}$Cl one-proton transfer reaction. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **48**(6), 065101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abdee4
104. E. Plagnol, J. Łukasik et al., Onset of midvelocity emissions in symmetric heavy ion reactions. Phys. Rev. C **61**, 014606 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.014606

105. A. Rebillard-Soulié, D. Gruyer, G. Verde et al., Study of the Hoyle state in $^{12}$C produced by $^{20}$Ne+$^{12}$C reactions. Nuovo Cim. C **45**, 57 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22057-0. Proceedings of the IWM-EC conference, GANIL Nov. 23–26 2021

106. B. Borderie, A.R. Raduta, G. Ademard, M.F. Rivet, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, N. Le Neindre et al., Probing clustering in excited alpha-conjugate nuclei. Phys. Lett. B **755**, 475–480 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.061

107. G. Cardella, A. Bonasera, N.S. Martorana et al., Search for rare 3-α decays in the region of the Hoyle state of $^{12}$C. Nucl. Phys. A **1020**, 122395 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122395

108. J.A. Wheeler, Molecular viewpoints in nuclear structure. Phys. Rev. **52**, 1083–1106 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.52.1083

109. E. Wigner, On the structure of nuclei beyond oxygen. Phys. Rev. **51**, 947–958 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.51.947

110. Y. Kanada-En'yo, Y. Kawanami, Y. Taniguchi, M. Kimura, Cluster states in 13B. Progr. Theoret. Phys. **120**(5), 917–935 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.120.917

111. T. Suhara, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Cluster structures of excited states in $^{14}$C. Phys. Rev. C **82**(4), 044301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.044301

112. T. Baba, M. Kimura, Three-body decay of linear-chain states in $^{14}$C. Phys. Rev. C **95**(6), 064318 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064318

113. K.W. McVoy, Regge Poles and strong absorption in heavy-ion and α-nucleus scattering. Phys. Rev. C **3**, 1104–1117 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.3.1104

114. B. Zhou, M. Kimura, Q. Zhao, S.-h Shin, Microscopic calculations for Be isotopes within real-time evolution method. Eur. Phys. J. A **56**(11), 298 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00306-6

115. T. Ichikawa, N. Itagaki, Optimization of basis functions for multiconfiguration mixing using the replica exchange Monte Carlo method and its application to $^{12}$C. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 024314 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024314

116. M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En'yo, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, Microscopic clustering in light nuclei. Rev. Mod. Phys. **90**, 035004 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.035004

117. Y. Kanada-En'yo, H. Horiuchi, Structure of light unstable nuclei studied with antisymmetrized molecular dynamics. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. **142**, 205 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.142.205. arXiv:nucl-th/0107044

118. N. Itagaki, A.V. Afanasjev, D. Ray, Possibility of $^{14}$C cluster as a building block of medium-mass nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **101**, 034304 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034304

119. A.S. Demyanova, V.I. Starastin, A.N. Danilov, A.A. Ogloblin, S.V. Dmitriev, S.A. Goncharov, T.L. Belyaeva, V.A. Maslov, Y.G. Sobolev, W. Trzaska, P. Heikkinen, G.P. Gurov, N. Burtebaev, D. Janseitov, Possible neutron and proton halo structure in the isobaric analog states of A = 12 nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **102**, 054612 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.054612

120. Q. Zhao, Y. Suzuki, J. He, B. Zhou, M. Kimura, α clustering and neutron-skin thickness of carbon isotopes. Eur. Phys. J. A **57**(5), 157 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00465-0

121. R. Smith, J. Bishop, J. Hirst, T. Kokalova, C. Wheldon, The Hoyle Family: the search for alpha-condensate states in light nuclei. Few-Body Syst. **61**(2), 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-020-1545-5

122. V.M. Datar, S. Kumar, D.R. Chakrabarty, V. Nanal, E.T. Mirgule, A. Mitra, H.H. Oza, Direct observation of 4$^+$-to-2$^+$ gamma transition in $^8$Be. Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**(12), 122502 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.122502

123. G. Cardella, F. Fayela, N.S. Martorana, L. Acosta, A. Camaiani, E. De Filippo, N. Gelli, E. Geraci, B. Gnoffo, C. Guazzoni et al., Investigating γ-ray decay of excited $^{12}$C levels with a multifold coincidence analysis. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 064315 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064315

124. D.J. Marín-Lámbarri, R. Bijker, M. Freer, M. Gai, T. Kokalova, D.J. Parker, C. Wheldon, Evidence for triangular $D_{3h}$ symmetry in $^{12}$C. Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**(1), 012502 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.012502

125. M. Freer, The clustered nucleus-cluster structures in stable and unstable nuclei. Rep. Prog. Phys. **70**(12), 2149 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/12/r03

126. R. Bijker, F. Iachello, The algebraic cluster model: three-body clusters. Ann. Phys. **298**(2), 334–360 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2002.6255

127. R. Bijker, F. Iachello, Evidence for tetrahedral symmetry in $^{16}$O. Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**(15), 152501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.152501

128. P. Figuera, E.A. Maugeri et al., Development of an intense $^{10}$Be radioactive beam in 'off-line mode' at the Catania Tandem accelerator. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. A **972**, 164120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164120

129. W. von Oertzen, M. Freer, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Nuclear clusters and nuclear molecules. Phys. Rep. **432**(2), 43–113 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.07.001

130. A. Di Pietro, J. Fernández-García, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, S. Heinitz, M. Lattuada, D. Torresi, M. Alcorta, M.J. García Borge, T. Davinson et al., Exotic clustering investigation in $^{13}$B and $^{14}$C using RIBs. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis., C **41**, 186 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2018-18186-4

131. I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, G. Spadaccini, G. Verde, M. Vigilante, Spectroscopy of $^{13}$C above the α threshold with α+$^9$Be reactions at low energies. Phys. Rev. C **97**(3), 034320 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034320

132. D. Dell'Aquila, I. Lombardo, G. Verde, M. Vigilante, G. Ausanio, A. Ordine, M. Miranda, M. De Luca, R. Alba, L. Augey et al., OSCAR: A new modular device for the identification and correlation of low energy particles. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **877**, 227–237 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.09.046

133. D. Bardayan, Transfer reactions in nuclear astrophysics. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **43**(4), 043001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/4/043001

134. R.L. Kozub, D.H. Youngblood, Single-particle strengths for quasibound levels in $^{33}$Cl. Phys. Rev. C **5**(2), 413 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.5.413

135. P. Endt, Spectroscopic factors for single-nucleon transfer in the A = 21–44 region. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **19**(1), 23–61 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-640X(77)90008-0

136. M.B. Tsang, J. Lee, W.G. Lynch, Survey of ground state neutron spectroscopic factors from Li to Cr isotopes. Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**(22), 222501 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.222501

137. S. Gillespie, A. Parikh, C.J. Barton, T. Faestermann, J. José, R. Hertenberger, H.-F. Wirth, N. De Séréville, J.E. Riley, M. Williams, First measurement of the $^{34}$S(p, γ)$^{35}$Cl reaction rate through indirect methods for presolar nova grains. Phys. Rev. C **96**(2), 025801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.025801

138. I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, M. Cinausero, L.R. Gasques, M. Vigilante, V.A.B. Zagatto, S. Barlini, R. Bolzonella, M. Bruno, A. Buccola et al., Study of the $^{33}$Cl spectroscopic factors via the $^{32}$S(³He, d)$^{33}$Cl one-proton transfer reaction. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **48**(6), 065101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abdee4
139. A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, F. Amorini, C. Angulo, G. Cardella, S. Cherubini, T. Davinson, D. Leanza, J. Lu, H. Mahmud et al., Reactions induced by the halo nucleus $^6$He at energies around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. C 69(4), 044613 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.044613

140. M. Cubero, J. Fernández-García, M. Rodríguez-Gallardo, L. Acosta, M. Alcorta, M. Alvarez, M. Borge, L. Buchmann, C. Diget, H. Al Falou et al., Do halo nuclei follow Rutherford elastic scattering at energies below the barrier? The case of $^{11}$Li. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(26), 262701 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.262701

141. A. Di Pietro, G. Randisi, V. Scuderi, L. Acosta, F. Amorini, M.J.G. Borge, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, L.M. Fraile, J. Gomez-Camacho et al., Elastic scattering and reaction mechanisms of the halo nucleus $^{11}$Be around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(2), 022701 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.022701

142. A. Di Pietro, V. Scuderi, A.M. Moro, L. Acosta, F. Amorini, M.J.G. Borge, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, L.M. Fraile, J. Gomez-Camacho et al., Experimental study of the collision $^{11}$Be+$^{64}$Zn around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. C 85(5), 054607 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.054607

143. R. Sparta, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, O. Tengblad, A.M. Moro, I. Martel, J.P. Fernández-García, J. Lei, L. Acosta, M.J.G. Borge et al., Probing proton halo effects in the $^{8}$B+$^{64}$Zn collision around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Lett. B 820, 136477 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136477

144. Y.Y. Yang, X. Liu, D.Y. Pang, D. Patel, R.F. Chen, J.S. Wang, P. Ma, J.B. Ma, S.L. Jin, Z. Bai et al., Elastic scattering of the proton drip line nuclei $^{7}$Be, $^{8}$B, and $^{9}$C on a lead target at energies around three times the Coulomb barriers. Phys. Rev. C 98(4), 044608 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.044608

145. F. Käppeler, F.-K. Thielemann, M. Wiescher, Current quests in nuclear astrophysics and experimental approaches. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 48, 175-251 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.48.1.175

146. M.R. Mumpower, R. Surman, G.C. McLaughlin, A. Aprahamian, The impact of individual nuclear properties on r-process nucleosynthesis. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 86, 86-126 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001 arXiv:1508.07352 [nucl-th]

147. A. Sobiczewski, F.A. Gareev, B.N. Kallinkin, Closed shells for Z > 82 and N > 126 in a diffuse potential well. Phys. Lett. 22, 500 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(66)91243-1

148. Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Super-heavy element research. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 036301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/78/3/036301

149. Y.T. Oganessian et al., Synthesis of the isotopes of elements 118 and 116 in the $^{249}$Cf and $^{245}$Cm+$^{48}$Ca fusion reactions. Phys. Rev. C 74, 044602 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044602

150. K. Morita et al., New result in the production and decay of an isotope, $^{278}$113, of the 113th element. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 103201 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.81.103201

151. P.J. Karol, R.C. Barber, B.M. Sherrill, E. Vardaci, T. Yamazaki, Discovery of the elements with atomic number Z = 113, 115 and 117 (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 139 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-0502

152. P.J. Karol, R.C. Barber, B.M. Sherrill, E. Vardaci, T. Yamazaki, Discovery of the element with atomic number Z = 118 completing the 7th row of the periodic table (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-0501

153. Y.T. Oganessian, Heaviest nuclei from $^{48}$Ca-induced reactions. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 34, 165 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/34/4/r01

154. M.G. Itkis, E. Vardaci, I.M. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, Fusion and fission of heavy and superheavy nuclei (experiment). Nucl. Phys. A 944, 204-237 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.007

155. E. Vardaci, M.G. Itkis, I.M. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, Fission and quasifission toward the superheavy mass region. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 103002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab3118

156. V.I. Zagrebaev, W. Greiner, Production of heavy trans-target nuclei in multinucleon transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. C 87, 034608 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034608

157. M. Schädel et al., Isotope distributions in the reaction of $^{238}$U with $^{238}$U. Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 469 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.469

158. M. Schädel et al., Actinide production in collisions of $^{238}$U with $^{248}$Cm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 852 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.852

159. J. Töke et al., Quasi-fission—the mass-drift mode in heavy-ion reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 440, 327 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90344-6

160. J.V. Kratz, W. Loveland, K.J. Moody, Syntheses of transuranium isotopes with atomic numbers $Z \le 103$ in multi-nucleon transfer reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 944, 117 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.06.004

161. A.V. Karpov, A. Kelic, K.H. Schmidt, On the topographical properties of fission barriers. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 035104 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/35/3/035104

162. V.M. Strutinsky, “Shells” in deformed nuclei. Nucl. Phys. A 122, 1 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(68)90699-4

163. U. Brosa, S. Grossmann, A. Muller, Nuclear scission. Phys. Rep. 197, 167-262 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90114-H

164. M.G. Itkis, V.N. Okolovich, A.Y. Rusanov, G.N. Smirenkin, Asymmetric fission of the pre-actinide nuclei. Z. Phys. A 320, 433 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415720

165. D. Rochman, I. Tsekhanovich, F. Gönnenwein, V. Sokolov, F. Storrer, G. Simpson, O. Serot, Super-asymmetric fission in the $^{245}$Cm($n_{th}$, f) reaction at the Lohengrin fission-fragment mass separator. Nucl. Phys. A 735, 3 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.01.121

166. I.M. Itkis, M.G. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, T.A. Loktev, K.V. Novikov, F. Hanappe, E. Vardaci, Bimodal fission of Hs*. J. Phys. Confer. Ser. 515, 012008 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/515/1/012008

167. C. Engelmann et al., Production and identification of heavy Ni isotopes: evidence for the doubly magic nucleus $^{78}$Ni. Z. Phys. A 352, 351 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299748

168. V.I. Zagrebaev, W. Greiner, Production of heavy and superheavy neutron-rich nuclei in transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. C 83, 044618 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.044618

169. E.M. Kozulin, E. Vardaci et al., Mass distributions of the system $^{136}$Xe + $^{208}$Pb at laboratory energies around the Coulomb barrier: a candidate reaction for the production of neutron-rich nuclei at N = 126. Phys. Rev. C 86, 044611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.044611

170. A.V. Karpov, V.V. Saiko, Modeling near-barrier collisions of heavy ions based on a Langevin-type approach. Phys. Rev. C 96, 024618 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024618

171. V.V. Saiko, A.V. Karpov, Analysis of multinucleon transfer reactions with spherical and statically deformed nuclei using a Langevin-type approach. Phys. Rev. C 99, 014613 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014613

172. C. Borcea et al., Alpha-particle energy spectra measured at forward angles in heavy-ion induced reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 351, 312 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(81)90447-4

173. C. Borcea et al., Emission of high-energy charged particles at zero degrees in Ne-induced reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 391, 520 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(82)90623-6

174. C. Borcea et al., Angular and energy dependences of emission probability for light particles in $^{22}$Ne-induced reactions at 8 MeV/nucleon. Nucl. Phys. A 415, 169 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(84)90605-5
139. A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, F. Amorini, C. Angulo, G. Cardella, S. Cherubini, T. Davinson, D. Leanza, J. Lu, H. Mahmud et al., Reactions induced by the halo nucleus $^6$He at energies around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. C 69(4), 044613 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.044613

140. M. Cubero, J. Fernández-García, M. Rodríguez-Gallardo, L. Acosta, M. Alcorta, M. Alvarez, M. Borge, L. Buchmann, C. Diget, H. Al Falou et al., Do halo nuclei follow Rutherford elastic scattering at energies below the barrier? The case of $^{11}$Li. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(26), 262701 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.262701

141. A. Di Pietro, G. Randisi, V. Scuderi, L. Acosta, F. Amorini, M.J.G. Borge, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, L.M. Fraile, J. Gomez-Camacho et al., Elastic scattering and reaction mechanisms of the halo nucleus $^{11}$Be around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(2), 022701 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.022701

142. A. Di Pietro, V. Scuderi, A.M. Moro, L. Acosta, F. Amorini, M.J.G. Borge, P. Figuera, M. Fisichella, L.M. Fraile, J. Gomez-Camacho et al., Experimental study of the collision $^{11}$Be+$^{64}$Zn around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Rev. C 85(5), 054607 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.054607

143. R. Sparta, A. Di Pietro, P. Figuera, O. Tengblad, A.M. Moro, I. Martel, J.P. Fernández-García, J. Lei, L. Acosta, M.J.G. Borge et al., Probing proton halo effects in the $^{8}$B+$^{64}$Zn collision around the Coulomb barrier. Phys. Lett. B 820, 136477 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136477

144. Y.Y. Yang, X. Liu, D.Y. Pang, D. Patel, R.F. Chen, J.S. Wang, P. Ma, J.B. Ma, S.L. Jin, Z. Bai et al., Elastic scattering of the proton drip line nuclei $^{7}$Be, $^{8}$B, and $^{9}$C on a lead target at energies around three times the Coulomb barriers. Phys. Rev. C 98(4), 044608 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.044608

145. F. Käppeler, F.-K. Thielemann, M. Wiescher, Current quests in nuclear astrophysics and experimental approaches. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 48, 175-251 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.48.1.175

146. M.R. Mumpower, R. Surman, G.C. McLaughlin, A. Aprahamian, The impact of individual nuclear properties on r-process nucleosynthesis. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 86, 86-126 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001 arXiv:1508.07352 [nucl-th]

147. A. Sobiczewski, F.A. Gareev, B.N. Kallinkin, Closed shells for $Z > 82$ and $N > 126$ in a diffuse potential well. Phys. Lett. 22, 500 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(66)91243-1

148. Y.T. Oganessian, V.K. Utyonkov, Super-heavy element research. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 036301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/78/3/036301

149. Y.T. Oganessian et al., Synthesis of the isotopes of elements 118 and 116 in the $^{249}$Cf and $^{245}$Cm+$^{48}$Ca fusion reactions. Phys. Rev. C 74, 044602 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.044602

150. K. Morita et al., New result in the production and decay of an isotope, $^{278}$113, of the 113th element. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 103201 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.81.103201

151. P.J. Karol, R.C. Barber, B.M. Sherrill, E. Vardaci, T. Yamazaki, Discovery of the elements with atomic number $Z = 113, 115$ and $117$ (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 139 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-0502

152. P.J. Karol, R.C. Barber, B.M. Sherrill, E. Vardaci, T. Yamazaki, Discovery of the element with atomic number $Z = 118$ completing the 7th row of the periodic table (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 88, 155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-0501

153. Y.T. Oganessian, Heaviest nuclei from $^{48}$Ca-induced reactions. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 34, 165 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/34/4/r01

154. M.G. Itkis, E. Vardaci, I.M. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, Fusion and fission of heavy and superheavy nuclei (experiment). Nucl. Phys. A 944, 204-237 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.007

155. E. Vardaci, M.G. Itkis, I.M. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, Fission and quasifission toward the superheavy mass region. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 46, 103002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab3118

156. V.I. Zagrebaev, W. Greiner, Production of heavy trans-target nuclei in multinucleon transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. C 87, 034608 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034608

157. M. Schädel et al., Isotope distributions in the reaction of $^{238}$U with $^{238}$U. Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 469 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.469

158. M. Schädel et al., Actinide production in collisions of $^{238}$U with $^{248}$Cm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 852 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.852

159. J. Töke et al., Quasi-fission—the mass-drift mode in heavy-ion reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 440, 327 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90344-6

160. J.V. Kratz, W. Loveland, K.J. Moody, Syntheses of transuranium isotopes with atomic numbers $Z \le 103$ in multi-nucleon transfer reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 944, 117 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.06.004

161. A.V. Karpov, A. Kelic, K.H. Schmidt, On the topographical properties of fission barriers. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 035104 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/35/3/035104

162. V.M. Strutinsky, “Shells” in deformed nuclei. Nucl. Phys. A 122, 1 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(68)90699-4

163. U. Brosa, S. Grossmann, A. Muller, Nuclear scission. Phys. Rep. 197, 167-262 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90114-H

164. M.G. Itkis, V.N. Okolovich, A.Y. Rusanov, G.N. Smirenkin, Asymmetric fission of the pre-actinide nuclei. Z. Phys. A 320, 433 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415720

165. D. Rochman, I. Tsekhanovich, F. Gönnenwein, V. Sokolov, F. Storrer, G. Simpson, O. Serot, Super-asymmetric fission in the $^{245}$Cm($n_{th}$, f) reaction at the Lohengrin fission-fragment mass separator. Nucl. Phys. A 735, 3 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.01.121

166. I.M. Itkis, M.G. Itkis, G.N. Knyazheva, E.M. Kozulin, T.A. Loktev, K.V. Novikov, F. Hanappe, E. Vardaci, Bimodal fission of Hs*. J. Phys. Confer. Ser. 515, 012008 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/515/1/012008

167. C. Engelmann et al., Production and identification of heavy Ni isotopes: evidence for the doubly magic nucleus $^{78}$Ni. Z. Phys. A 352, 351 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299748

168. V.I. Zagrebaev, W. Greiner, Production of heavy and superheavy neutron-rich nuclei in transfer reactions. Phys. Rev. C 83, 044618 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.044618

169. E.M. Kozulin, E. Vardaci et al., Mass distributions of the system $^{136}$Xe + $^{208}$Pb at laboratory energies around the Coulomb barrier: a candidate reaction for the production of neutron-rich nuclei at $N = 126$. Phys. Rev. C 86, 044611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.044611

170. A.V. Karpov, V.V. Saiko, Modeling near-barrier collisions of heavy ions based on a Langevin-type approach. Phys. Rev. C 96, 024618 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024618

171. V.V. Saiko, A.V. Karpov, Analysis of multinucleon transfer reactions with spherical and statically deformed nuclei using a Langevin-type approach. Phys. Rev. C 99, 014613 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014613

172. C. Borcea et al., Alpha-particle energy spectra measured at forward angles in heavy-ion induced reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 351, 312 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(81)90447-4

173. C. Borcea et al., Emission of high-energy charged particles at zero degrees in Ne-induced reactions. Nucl. Phys. A 391, 520 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(82)90623-6

174. C. Borcea et al., Angular and energy dependences of emission probability for light particles in $^{22}$Ne-induced reactions at 8 MeV/nucleon. Nucl. Phys. A 415, 169 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(84)90605-5
175. C. Borcea et al., Superheavy elements: a new Paradigm, in Proceedings of the International Symposium On Exotic Nuclei 2016 Kazan, Russia (World Scientific, 2016), p. 132. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813226548_0021. ISBN 978-9813226531

176. J. Engel, J. Menéndez, Status and future of nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double-beta decay: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. **80**(4), 046301 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa5bc5

177. F. Osterfeld, Nuclear spin and isospin excitations. Rev. Mod. Phys. **64**, 491–557 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.64.491

178. M.N. Harakeh, A. van der Woude, Giant Resonances. Fundamental High-Frequency Modes of Nuclear Excitations (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992)

179. M. Ichimura, H. Sakai, T. Wakasa, Spin-isospin responses via (p, n) and (n, p) reactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **56**(2), 446–531 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.09.001

180. Y. Fujita, B. Rubio, W. Gellesly, Spin-isospin excitations probed by strong, weak and electro-magnetic interactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **66**(3), 549–606 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.056

181. H. Lenske, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, M. Colonna, Heavy ion charge exchange reactions as probes for nuclear β-decays. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **109**, 103716 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103716

182. N. Shimizu, J. Menéndez, K. Yako, Double gamow-teller transitions and its relation to neutrinoless ββ decay. Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 142502 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.142502

183. E. Santopinto, H. García-Tecocoatzi, R.I. Magaña Vsevolodovna, J. Ferretti, Heavy-ion double-charge-exchange and its relation to neutrinoless double-β decay. Phys. Rev. C **98**, 061601 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.061601

184. B. Romeo, J. Menéndez, C.P.N.: γγ decay as a probe of neutrinoless ββ decay nuclear matrix elements. Phys. Lett. B **827**, 136965 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136965

185. H. Lenske, H.H. Wolter, H.G. Bohlen, Reaction mechanism of heavy-ion charge-exchange scattering at intermediate energies. Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 1457–1460 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1457

186. F. Cappuzzello, H. Lenske, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, N. Auerbach, J.I. Bellone, R. Bijker, S. Burrello, S. Calabrese, D. Carbone, M. Colonna, G. De Gregorio, J.L. Ferreira, D. Gambacurta, H. García-Tecocoatzi, A. Gargano, J.A. Lay, R. Linares, J. Lubian, E. Santopinto, O. Sgouros, V. Soukeras, A. Spatafora, Shedding light on nuclear aspects of neutrinoless double beta decay by heavy-ion double charge exchange reactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **128**, 103999 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103999

187. J.L. Ferreira, J. Lubian, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone, Multinucleon transfer in the $^{116}$Cd($^{20}$Ne, $^{20}$O)$^{116}$Sn double charge exchange reaction at 306 MeV incident energy. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 014630 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014630

188. J.I. Bellone, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, J.A. Lay, H. Lenske, Two-step description of heavy ion double charge exchange reactions. Phys. Lett. B **807**, 135528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135528

189. H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, D. Gambacurta, Nuclear matrix elements for heavy ion sequential double charge exchange reactions. Universe **7**(4), 98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7040098. arXiv:2104.05472 [nucl-th]

190. H. Lenske, Probing double beta-decay by heavy ion charge exchange reactions. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. **1056**, 012030 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1056/1/012030

191. D. Torresi, O. Sgouros, V. Soukeras, M. Cavallaro, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, C. Agodi, G.A. Brischetto, S. Calabrese, I. Ciraldo, N. Deshmukh, A. Hacisalihoglu, L.L. Fauci, A. Spatafora, Numen collaboration: an upgraded focal plane detector for the MAGNEX spectrometer. Nucl. Inst. and Methods A **989**, 164918 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164918

192. C. Agodi et al., The numen project: Toward new experiments with high-intensity beams. Universe (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7030072

193. M. Cortesi, S. Rost, W. Mittig, Y. Ayyad-Limonge, D. Bazin, J. Yurkon, A. Stolz, Multi-layer thick gas electron multiplier (M – THGEM): a new MPGD structure for high-gain operation at low-pressure. Rev. Sci. Instrum. **88**(1), 013303 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974333

194. F. Iazzi, S. Ferrero, R. Introzzi, F. Pinna, L. Scaltrito, D. Calvo, M. Fisichella, C. Agodi, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, A new cooling technique for targets operating under very intense beams. WIT Trans. Eng. Sci. **116**, 61–70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2495/MC170071

195. F. Pinna, V. Capirossi, F. Delaunay, F. Iazzi, O. Brunasso, D. Calvo, M. Fisichella, Tests of a cooling system for thin targets submitted to intense ion beams for the NUMEN experiment. Acta Phys. Pol., B **51**(3), 655 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolB.51.655

196. M. Cavallaro, G. Santagati, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, R. Linares et al., Charge-state distributions of $^{20}$Ne ions emerging from thin foils. Results Phys. **13**, 102191 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102191

197. D. Carbone, J.L. Ferreira, S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro et al., Analysis of two-nucleon transfer reactions in the $^{20}$Ne + $^{116}$Cd system at 306 MeV. Phys. Rev. C **102**, 044606 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044606

198. S. Burrello, S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro et al., Multichannel experimental and theoretical constraints for the $^{116}$Cd($^{20}$Ne, $^{20}$F)$^{116}$In charge exchange reaction at 306 mev. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 024616 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024616

199. M. Cavallaro, J.I. Bellone, S. Calabrese, C. Agodi, S. Burrello et al., A constrained analysis of the $^{40}$Ca($^{18}$O, $^{18}$F)$^{40}$K direct charge exchange reaction mechanism at 275 MeV. Front. Astron. Sp. Sci. **8**, 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.659815

200. J.L. Ferreira, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, N.N. Deshmukh, C. Agodi et al., Analysis of two-proton transfer in the $^{40}$Ca($^{18}$O, $^{20}$Ne)$^{38}$Ar reaction at 270 mev incident energy. Phys. Rev. C **103**, 054604 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054604

201. S. Calabrese, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone, F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi et al., $^{18}$O-induced single-nucleon transfer reactions on $^{40}$Ca at 15.3 A MeV within a multichannel analysis. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 064609 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064609

202. O. Sgouros, M. Cavallaro, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, C. Agodi et al., One-proton transfer reaction for the $^{18}$O+$^{48}$Ti system at 275 MeV. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 034617 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034617

203. O. Sgouros, A multi-channel approach in the study of the $^{18}$O+$^{18}$Ti reaction within the NUMEN project. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(4), 70 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22070-3

204. G. Brischetto, Data reduction of the $^{18}$O+$^{48}$Ti elastic and inelastic scattering at 275 MeV in the context of the NUMEN project. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(5), 96 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22096-5

205. A. Spatafora et al., A full-comprehensive experimental and theoretical approach applied to the $^{12}$C($^{18}$O, $^{18}$F)$^{12}$B single charge-exchange reaction at 15.3 A MeV. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(5), 131 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22131-7

206. V. Soukeras, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, L. Acosta, I. Boztosun, G.A. Brischetto, S. Calabrese, D. Calvo, E.R. Chávez Lomelí, I. Ciraldo, M. Cutuli, F. Delaunay, P. Finocchiaro, M. Fisichella, A. Foti, A. Hacisalihoglu, F. Iazzi, L.L. Fauci, G. Lanzalone, R. Linares, J.R.B. Oliveira, A. Pakou, L. Pandola, H. Petrascu, F. Pinna, G. Russo, O. Sgouros, S.O. Solakci, G. Souliotis, A. Spatafora, D. Torresi, S. Tudisco, A. Yildirim, V.A.B. Zagatto, Numen collaboration: measurement of the double charge exchange reaction for the $^{20}$Ne + $^{130}$Te system at 306 MeV. Results Phys. **28**, 104691 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104691

207. S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, L. Acosta, D. Bonanno, D. Bongiovanni, T. Borello-Lewin, I. Boztosun, D. Calvo, E.R. Chàvez Lomeli, N. Deshmukh, P.N. de Faria, P. Finocchiaro, M. Fisichella, A. Foti, G. Gallo, A. Hacisalihoglu, F. Iazzi, R. Introzzi, G. Lanzalone, R. Linares, F. Longhitano, D. Lo Presti, N. Medina, A. Muoio, J.R.B. Oliveira, A. Pakou, L. Pandola, F. Pinna, S. Reito, G. Russo, G. Santagati, O.
175. C. Borcea et al., Superheavy elements: a new Paradigm, in Proceedings of the International Symposium On Exotic Nuclei 2016 Kazan, Russia (World Scientific, 2016), p. 132. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813226548_0021. ISBN 978-9813226531

176. J. Engel, J. Menéndez, Status and future of nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double-beta decay: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. **80**(4), 046301 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa5bc5

177. F. Osterfeld, Nuclear spin and isospin excitations. Rev. Mod. Phys. **64**, 491–557 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.64.491

178. M.N. Harakeh, A. van der Woude, Giant Resonances. Fundamental High-Frequency Modes of Nuclear Excitations (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992)

179. M. Ichimura, H. Sakai, T. Wakasa, Spin-isospin responses via (p, n) and (n, p) reactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **56**(2), 446–531 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.09.001

180. Y. Fujita, B. Rubio, W. Gellesly, Spin-isospin excitations probed by strong, weak and electro-magnetic interactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **66**(3), 549–606 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.01.056

181. H. Lenske, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, M. Colonna, Heavy ion charge exchange reactions as probes for nuclear β-decays. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **109**, 103716 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103716

182. N. Shimizu, J. Menéndez, K. Yako, Double gamow-teller transitions and its relation to neutrinoless ββ decay. Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 142502 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.142502

183. E. Santopinto, H. García-Tecocoatzi, R.I. Magaña Vsevolodovna, J. Ferretti, Heavy-ion double-charge-exchange and its relation to neutrinoless double-β decay. Phys. Rev. C **98**, 061601 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.061601

184. B. Romeo, J. Menéndez, C.P.N.: γγ decay as a probe of neutrinoless ββ decay nuclear matrix elements. Phys. Lett. B **827**, 136965 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136965

185. H. Lenske, H.H. Wolter, H.G. Bohlen, Reaction mechanism of heavy-ion charge-exchange scattering at intermediate energies. Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 1457–1460 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1457

186. F. Cappuzzello, H. Lenske, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, N. Auerbach, J.I. Bellone, R. Bijker, S. Burrello, S. Calabrese, D. Carbone, M. Colonna, G. De Gregorio, J.L. Ferreira, D. Gambacurta, H. García-Tecocoatzi, A. Gargano, J.A. Lay, R. Linares, J. Lubian, E. Santopinto, O. Sgouros, V. Soukeras, A. Spatafora, Shedding light on nuclear aspects of neutrinoless double beta decay by heavy-ion double charge exchange reactions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **128**, 103999 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103999

187. J.L. Ferreira, J. Lubian, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone, Multinucleon transfer in the $^{116}$Cd($^{20}$Ne, $^{20}$O)$^{116}$Sn double charge exchange reaction at 306 MeV incident energy. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 014630 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014630

188. J.I. Bellone, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, J.A. Lay, H. Lenske, Two-step description of heavy ion double charge exchange reactions. Phys. Lett. B **807**, 135528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135528

189. H. Lenske, J. Bellone, M. Colonna, D. Gambacurta, Nuclear matrix elements for heavy ion sequential double charge exchange reactions. Universe **7**(4), 98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7040098. arXiv:2104.05472 [nucl-th]

190. H. Lenske, Probing double beta-decay by heavy ion charge exchange reactions. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. **1056**, 012030 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1056/1/012030

191. D. Torresi, O. Sgouros, V. Soukeras, M. Cavallaro, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, C. Agodi, G.A. Brischetto, S. Calabrese, I. Ciraldo, N. Deshmukh, A. Hacisalihoglu, L.L. Fauci, A. Spatafora, Numen collaboration: an upgraded focal plane detector for the MAGNEX spectrometer. Nucl. Inst. and Methods A **989**, 164918 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164918

192. C. Agodi et al., The numen project: Toward new experiments with high-intensity beams. Universe (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7030072

193. M. Cortesi, S. Rost, W. Mittig, Y. Ayyad-Limonge, D. Bazin, J. Yurkon, A. Stolz, Multi-layer thick gas electron multiplier (M – THGEM): a new MPGD structure for high-gain operation at low-pressure. Rev. Sci. Instrum. **88**(1), 013303 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974333

194. F. Iazzi, S. Ferrero, R. Introzzi, F. Pinna, L. Scaltrito, D. Calvo, M. Fisichella, C. Agodi, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, A new cooling technique for targets operating under very intense beams. WIT Trans. Eng. Sci. **116**, 61–70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2495/MC170071

195. F. Pinna, V. Capirossi, F. Delaunay, F. Iazzi, O. Brunasso, D. Calvo, M. Fisichella, Tests of a cooling system for thin targets submitted to intense ion beams for the NUMEN experiment. Acta Phys. Pol., B **51**(3), 655 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolB.51.655

196. M. Cavallaro, G. Santagati, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, R. Linares et al., Charge-state distributions of $^{20}$Ne ions emerging from thin foils. Results Phys. **13**, 102191 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102191

197. D. Carbone, J.L. Ferreira, S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, M. Cavallaro et al., Analysis of two-nucleon transfer reactions in the $^{20}$Ne + $^{116}$Cd system at 306 MeV. Phys. Rev. C **102**, 044606 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044606

198. S. Burrello, S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro et al., Multichannel experimental and theoretical constraints for the $^{116}$Cd($^{20}$Ne, $^{20}$F)$^{116}$In charge exchange reaction at 306 mev. Phys. Rev. C **105**, 024616 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024616

199. M. Cavallaro, J.I. Bellone, S. Calabrese, C. Agodi, S. Burrello et al., A constrained analysis of the $^{40}$Ca($^{18}$O, $^{18}$F)$^{40}$K direct charge exchange reaction mechanism at 275 MeV. Front. Astron. Sp. Sci. **8**, 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.659815

200. J.L. Ferreira, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, N.N. Deshmukh, C. Agodi et al., Analysis of two-proton transfer in the $^{40}$Ca($^{18}$O, $^{20}$Ne)$^{38}$Ar reaction at 270 mev incident energy. Phys. Rev. C **103**, 054604 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054604

201. S. Calabrese, M. Cavallaro, D. Carbone, F. Cappuzzello, C. Agodi et al., $^{18}$O-induced single-nucleon transfer reactions on $^{40}$Ca at 15.3 A MeV within a multichannel analysis. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 064609 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064609

202. O. Sgouros, M. Cavallaro, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, C. Agodi et al., One-proton transfer reaction for the $^{18}$O + $^{48}$Ti system at 275 MeV. Phys. Rev. C **104**, 034617 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034617

203. O. Sgouros, A multi-channel approach in the study of the $^{18}$O + $^{48}$Ti reaction within the NUMEN project. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(4), 70 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22070-3

204. G. Brischetto, Data reduction of the $^{18}$O + $^{48}$Ti elastic and inelastic scattering at 275 MeV in the context of the NUMEN project. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(5), 96 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22096-5

205. A. Spatafora et al., A full-comprehensive experimental and theoretical approach applied to the $^{12}$C($^{18}$O, $^{18}$F)$^{12}$B single charge-exchange reaction at 15.3 A MeV. Nuovo Cim. Soc. Ital. Fis. **45**(5), 131 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2022-22131-7

206. V. Soukeras, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, L. Acosta, I. Boztosun, G.A. Brischetto, S. Calabrese, D. Calvo, E.R. Chávez Lomelí, I. Ciraldo, M. Cutuli, F. Delaunay, P. Finocchiaro, M. Fisichella, A. Foti, A. Hacisalihoglu, F. Iazzi, L.L. Fauci, G. Lanzalone, R. Linares, J.R.B. Oliveira, A. Pakou, L. Pandola, H. Petrascu, F. Pinna, G. Russo, O. Sgouros, S.O. Solakci, G. Souliotis, A. Spatafora, D. Torresi, S. Tudisco, A. Yildirim, V.A.B. Zagatto, Numen collaboration: measurement of the double charge exchange reaction for the $^{20}$Ne + $^{130}$Te system at 306 MeV. Results Phys. **28**, 104691 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104691

207. S. Calabrese, F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi, L. Acosta, D. Bonanno, D. Bongiovanni, T. Borello-Lewin, I. Boztosun, D. Calvo, E.R. Chàvez Lomeli, N. Deshmukh, P.N. de Faria, P. Finocchiaro, M. Fisichella, A. Foti, G. Gallo, A. Hacisalihoglu, F. Iazzi, R. Introzzi, G. Lanzalone, R. Linares, F. Longhitano, D. Lo Presti, N. Medina, A. Muoio, J.R.B. Oliveira, A. Pakou, L. Pandola, F. Pinna, S. Reito, G. Russo, G. Santagati, O.
Sgouros, S.O. Solakci, V. Soukeras, G. Souliotis, A. Spatafora, D. Torresi, S. Tudisco, A. Yildirim, V.A.B. Zagatto, First measurement of the (116) Cd((20) Ne, (20) O)(116) Sn reaction at 15 A MeV. Acta Phys. Pol., B **49**(3), 275 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolB.49.275

208. J. Kramp, D. Habs, R. Kroth, M. Music, J. Schirmer, D. Schwalm, C. Broude, Nuclear two-photon decay in $0^+ \rightarrow 0^+$ transitions. Nucl. Phys. A **474**(2), 412-450 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(87)90625-7

209. C. Walz, H. Scheit, N. Pietralla, T. Aumann, R. Lefol, V.Y. Ponomarev, Observation of the competitive double-gamma nuclear decay. Nature **526**, 406. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15543

210. P.A. Söderström et al., Electromagnetic character of the competitive $\gamma\gamma/\gamma$-decay from $^{137m}$Ba. Nat. Commun. **11**(1), 3242 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16787-4. arXiv:2001.00554 [nucl-ex]

211. L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, Perturbative approach to effective shell-model Hamiltonians and operators. Front. Phys. **8**, 325 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00345

212. L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, G. De Gregorio, A. Gargano et al., Present status of nuclear shell-model calculations of $0v\beta\beta$ decay matrix elements. Universe **6**(12), 233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6120233

213. R.A. Sen'kov, M. Horoi, Neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay of $^{48}$ca in the shell model: closure versus nonclosure approximation. Phys. Rev. C **88**, 064312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.064312

214. L. Coraggio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, R. Mancino, F. Nowacki, Calculation of the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay matrix element within the realistic shell model. Phys. Rev. C **101**, 044315 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044315

215. P. Ring, P. Schuck, *The Nuclear Many-body Problem* (Springer, New York, 1980)

216. X. Roca-Maza, N. Paar, Nuclear equation of state from ground and collective excited state properties of nuclei. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **101**, 96-176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.04.001

217. N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, G. Colò, Exotic modes of excitation in atomic nuclei far from stability. Rep. Prog. Phys. **70**, 02 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/5/r02

218. X. Roca-Maza, G. Colò, H. Sagawa, New skyrme interaction with improved spin-isospin properties. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 031306 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.031306

219. S. Shen, G. Colò, X. Roca-Maza, Skyrme functional with tensor terms from ab initio calculations of neutron-proton drops. Phys. Rev. C **99**, 034322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.034322

220. G. Colò, N. Van Giai, P.F. Bortignon, R.A. Broglia, Escape and spreading properties of charge-exchange resonances in $^{208}$Bi. Phys. Rev. C **50**, 1496-1508 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.50.1496

221. G.C.P.F. Bortignon, Qrpa plus phonon coupling model and the photoabsorption cross section for $^{18,20,22}$O. Nucl. Phys. A **696**(3), 427-441 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01217-9

222. D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, J. Engel, Subtraction method in the second random-phase approximation: first applications with a skyrme energy functional. Phys. Rev. C **92**, 034303 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034303

223. E. Litvinova, P. Ring, V. Tselyaev, Relativistic quasiparticle time blocking approximation: dipole response of open-shell nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **78**, 014312 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014312

224. V.G. Soloviev, *Theory of Atomic Nuclei: Quasiparticles and Phonons* (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 1992)

225. Y.F. Niu, Z.M. Niu, G. Colò, E. Vigezzi, Particle-vibration coupling effect on the $\beta$ decay of magic nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 142501 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.142501

226. D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, J. Engel, Gamow-teller strength in $^{48}$Ca and $^{78}$Ni with the charge-exchange subtracted second random-phase approximation. Phys. Rev. Lett. **125**, 212501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.212501

227. C. Robin, E. Litvinova, Nuclear response theory for spin-isospin excitations in a relativistic quasiparticle-phonon coupling framework. Phys. Rev. C **52**, 205 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16205-0

228. F. Iachello, A. Arima, *The Interacting Boson Model. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics* (Cambridge University Press, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895517

229. T. Otsuka, A. Arima, F. Iachello, Nuclear shell model and interacting bosons. Nucl. Phys. A **309**, 1-33 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(78)90532-8

230. C.E. Alonso et al., A calculation of low-lying collective states in odd-even nuclei. Phys. Lett. B **144**, 141-144 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)91790-8

231. J.M. Arias, C.E. Alonso, R. Bijker, Description of the odd-even xenon and cesium isotopes in the proton-neutron interacting boson-fermion model. Nucl. Phys. A **445**, 333-349 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90073-9

232. S. Brant, V. Paar, Zeit. Phys. A **329**, 151 (1988)

233. N. Yoshida, F. Iachello, Two neutrino double-$\beta$ decay in the interacting boson-fermion model. PTEP **2013**, 043-01 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptt007. arXiv:1301.7172 [nucl-th]

234. R. Magaña Vsevolodovna, E. Santopinto, R. Bijker, Transfer reactions between odd-odd and even-even nuclei by using IBFFM. arXiv:2101.05659, accepted by Phys. Rev. C

235. B. Paes, G. Santagati, R.M. Vsevolodovna, F. Cappuzzello et al., Long-range versus short-range correlations in the two-neutron transfer reaction $^{64}$Ni($^{18}$O, $^{16}$O)$^{66}$Ni. Phys. Rev. C **96**, 044612 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044612

236. G.C. Baldwin, G.S. Klaiber, Photo-fission in heavy elements. Phys. Rev. **71**, 3-10 (1947). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.71.3

237. M. Goldhaber, E. Teller, On nuclear dipole vibrations. Phys. Rev. **74**, 1046-1049 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.74.1046

238. H. Steinwedel, J.J.H. Jensen, Hydrodynamik von kerndipolschwingungen. Z. Naturforsch. **5a**, 413-420 (1950)

239. E. Migneco et al., MEDEA: a multi element detector array for gamma ray and light charged particle detection at the LNS-Catania. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. A **314**(1), 31-55 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(92)90949-R

240. A. Musumarra et al., Trasma, a detector for $\gamma$-charged particle coincidences. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **370**(2), 558-562 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(95)00819-5

241. D.M. Brink, A. Dellafiore, M. Di Toro, Nucl. Phys. A **456**, 205-234 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(86)90390-8

242. G.F. Burgio, M. Di Toro, Nuclear collective motions in a self-consistent Landau-Vlasov approach. Nucl. Phys. A **476**, 189-212 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(88)90480-0

243. M. Papa, W. Tian, G. Giuliani et al., Pre-equilibrium $\gamma$-ray emission induced in the $^{40}$Ca + $^{48}$Ca system at 10 MeV/nucleon and isospin equilibration processes. Phys. Rev. C **72**, 064608 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064608

244. D. Pierrotsakou, B. Martin et al., Evolution of the prompt dipole $\gamma$-ray emission with incident energy in fusion reactions. Phys. Rev. C **71**, 054605 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.71.054605

245. D. Pierrotsakou, B. Martin et al., Dynamical dipole mode in fusion reactions at 16 MeV/nucleon and beam energy dependence. Phys. Rev. C **80**, 024612 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024612
Sgouros, S.O. Solakci, V. Soukeras, G. Souliotis, A. Spatafora, D. Torresi, S. Tudisco, A. Yildirim, V.A.B. Zagatto, First measurement of the (116) Cd((20) Ne, (20) O)(116) Sn reaction at 15 A MeV. Acta Phys. Pol., B **49**(3), 275 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5506/APhysPolB.49.275

208. J. Kramp, D. Habs, R. Kroth, M. Music, J. Schirmer, D. Schwalm, C. Broude, Nuclear two-photon decay in $0^+ \to 0^+$ transitions. Nucl. Phys. A **474**(2), 412-450 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(87)90625-7

209. C. Walz, H. Scheit, N. Pietralla, T. Aumann, R. Lefol, V.Y. Ponomarev, Observation of the competitive double-gamma nuclear decay. Nature **526**, 406. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15543

210. P.A. Söderström et al., Electromagnetic character of the competitive $\gamma\gamma/\gamma$-decay from $^{137m}$Ba. Nat. Commun. **11**(1), 3242 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16787-4. arXiv:2001.00554 [nucl-ex]

211. L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, Perturbative approach to effective shell-model Hamiltonians and operators. Front. Phys. **8**, 325 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00345

212. L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, G. De Gregorio, A. Gargano et al., Present status of nuclear shell-model calculations of $0v\beta\beta$ decay matrix elements. Universe **6**(12), 233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6120233

213. R.A. Sen'kov, M. Horoi, Neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay of $^{48}$ca in the shell model: closure versus nonclosure approximation. Phys. Rev. C **88**, 064312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.064312

214. L. Coraggio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, R. Mancino, F. Nowacki, Calculation of the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay matrix element within the realistic shell model. Phys. Rev. C **101**, 044315 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044315

215. P. Ring, P. Schuck, *The Nuclear Many-body Problem* (Springer, New York, 1980)

216. X. Roca-Maza, N. Paar, Nuclear equation of state from ground and collective excited state properties of nuclei. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **101**, 96-176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.04.001

217. N. Paar, D. Vretenar, E. Khan, G. Colò, Exotic modes of excitation in atomic nuclei far from stability. Rep. Prog. Phys. **70**, 02 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/5/r02

218. X. Roca-Maza, G. Colò, H. Sagawa, New skyrme interaction with improved spin-isospin properties. Phys. Rev. C **86**, 031306 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.031306

219. S. Shen, G. Colò, X. Roca-Maza, Skyrme functional with tensor terms from ab initio calculations of neutron-proton drops. Phys. Rev. C **99**, 034322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.034322

220. G. Colò, N. Van Giai, P.F. Bortignon, R.A. Broglia, Escape and spreading properties of charge-exchange resonances in $^{208}$Bi. Phys. Rev. C **50**, 1496-1508 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.50.1496

221. G.C.P.F. Bortignon, Qrpa plus phonon coupling model and the photoabsorption cross section for $^{18,20,22}$O. Nucl. Phys. A **696**(3), 427-441 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01217-9

222. D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, J. Engel, Subtraction method in the second random-phase approximation: first applications with a skyrme energy functional. Phys. Rev. C **92**, 034303 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034303

223. E. Litvinova, P. Ring, V. Tselyaev, Relativistic quasiparticle time blocking approximation: dipole response of open-shell nuclei. Phys. Rev. C **78**, 014312 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014312

224. V.G. Soloviev, *Theory of Atomic Nuclei: Quasiparticles and Phonons* (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 1992)

225. Y.F. Niu, Z.M. Niu, G. Colò, E. Vigazzi, Particle-vibration coupling effect on the $\beta$ decay of magic nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 142501 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.142501

226. D. Gambacurta, M. Grasso, J. Engel, Gamow-teller strength in $^{48}$Ca and $^{78}$Ni with the charge-exchange subtracted second random-phase approximation. Phys. Rev. Lett. **125**, 212501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.212501

227. C. Robin, E. Litvinova, Nuclear response theory for spin-isospin excitations in a relativistic quasiparticle-phonon coupling framework. Phys. Rev. C **52**, 205 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16205-0

228. F. Iachello, A. Arima, *The Interacting Boson Model. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics* (Cambridge University Press, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895517

229. T. Otsuka, A. Arima, F. Iachello, Nuclear shell model and interacting bosons. Nucl. Phys. A **309**, 1-33 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(78)90532-8

230. C.E. Alonso et al., A calculation of low-lying collective states in odd-even nuclei. Phys. Lett. B **144**, 141-144 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)91790-8

231. J.M. Arias, C.E. Alonso, R. Bijker, Description of the odd-even xenon and cesium isotopes in the proton-neutron interacting boson-fermion model. Nucl. Phys. A **445**, 333-349 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(85)90073-9

232. S. Brant, V. Paar, Zeit. Phys. A **329**, 151 (1988)

233. N. Yoshida, F. Iachello, Two neutrino double-$\beta$ decay in the interacting boson-fermion model. PTEP **2013**, 043-01 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptt007. arXiv:1301.7172 [nucl-th]

234. R. Magaña Vsevolodovna, E. Santopinto, R. Bijker, Transfer reactions between odd-odd and even-even nuclei by using IBFFM. arXiv:2101.05659, accepted by Phys. Rev. C

235. B. Paes, G. Santagati, R.M. Vsevolodovna, F. Cappuzzello et al., Long-range versus short-range correlations in the two-neutron transfer reaction $^{64}$Ni($^{18}$O, $^{16}$O)$^{66}$Ni. Phys. Rev. C **96**, 044612 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044612

236. G.C. Baldwin, G.S. Klaiber, Photo-fission in heavy elements. Phys. Rev. **71**, 3-10 (1947). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.71.3

237. M. Goldhaber, E. Teller, On nuclear dipole vibrations. Phys. Rev. **74**, 1046-1049 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.74.1046

238. H. Steinwedel, J.J.H. Jensen, Hydrodynamik von kerndipolschwingungen. Z. Naturforsch. **5a**, 413-420 (1950)

239. E. Migneco et al., MEDEA: a multi element detector array for gamma ray and light charged particle detection at the LNS-Catania. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. A **314**(1), 31-55 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(92)90949-R

240. A. Musumarra et al., Trasma, a detector for $\gamma$-charged particle coincidences. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **370**(2), 558-562 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(95)00819-5

241. D.M. Brink, A. Dellafiore, M. Di Toro, Nucl. Phys. A **456**, 205-234 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(86)90390-8

242. G.F. Burgio, M. Di Toro, Nuclear collective motions in a self-consistent Landau-Vlasov approach. Nucl. Phys. A **476**, 189-212 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(88)90480-0

243. M. Papa, W. Tian, G. Giuliani et al., Pre-equilibrium $\gamma$-ray emission induced in the $^{40}$Ca + $^{48}$Ca system at 10 MeV/nucleon and isospin equilibration processes. Phys. Rev. C **72**, 064608 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064608

244. D. Pierrotsakou, B. Martin et al., Evolution of the prompt dipole $\gamma$-ray emission with incident energy in fusion reactions. Phys. Rev. C **71**, 054605 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.71.054605

245. D. Pierrotsakou, B. Martin et al., Dynamical dipole mode in fusion reactions at 16 MeV/nucleon and beam energy dependence. Phys. Rev. C **80**, 024612 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024612
246. A. Corsi, O. Wieland, V.L. Kravchuk et al., Excitation of the dynamical dipole in the charge asymmetric reaction $^{16}$O+$^{116}$Sn. Phys. Lett. B 679(3), 197-202 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.07.045

247. N.S. Martorana, G. Cardella, E.G. Lanza et al., First measurement of the isoscalar excitation above the neutron emission threshold of the Pygmy Dipole Resonance in $^{68}$Ni. Phys. Lett. B 782, 112-116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.019

248. L. Pellegrì et al., private communication

249. A. Bracco, F.C.L. Crespi, E.G. Lanza, Gamma decay of pygmy states from inelastic scattering of ions. Eur. Phys. J. A 51(8), 99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2015-15099-6

250. A. Bracco, E.G. Lanza, A. Tamii, Isoscalar and isovector dipole excitations: nuclear properties from low-lying states and from the isovector giant dipole resonance. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 360-433 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.001

251. D. Savran, T. Aumann, A. Zilges, Experimental studies of the pygmy dipole resonance. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 210-245 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2013.02.003

252. O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera et al., Search for the pygmy dipole resonance in $^{68}$Ni at 600 MeV nucleon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 092502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.092502

253. D.M. Rossi et al., Measurement of the dipole polarizability of the unstable neutron-rich nucleus $^{68}$Ni. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242503 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.242503

254. A. Pagano et al., Fragmentation studies with the CHIMERA detector at LNS in Catania: recent progress. Nucl. Phys. A 734, 504-511 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.01.093

255. M. Papa, A. Bonanno et al., Coherent and incoherent giant dipole resonance $\gamma$-ray emission induced by heavy ion collisions: study of the $^{40}$Ca+$^{48}$Ca system by means of the constrained molecular dynamics model. Phys. Rev. C 68, 034606 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034606

256. M. Papa, Cluster production and nuclear dynamics. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. 863, 012056 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/863/1/012056

257. G. Giuliani, M. Papa, Nucleon-nucleon symmetry potential term and giant dipole resonance $\gamma$-ray emission. Phys. Rev. C 73, 031601 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.73.031601

258. N.K. Glendenning, Equation of state from nuclear and astrophysical evidence. Phys. Rev. C 37, 2733-2743 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.37.2733

259. G. Colò, N. Van Giai, J. Meyer, K. Bennaceur, P. Bonche. Microscopic determination of the nuclear incompressibility within the nonrelativistic framework. Phys. Rev. C 70, 024307 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.024307

260. X. Chen, Y.-W. Lui, H.L. Clark, Y. Tokimoto, D.H. Youngblood, Giant resonances in $^{116}$Sn from 240 MeV $^{6}$Li scattering. Phys. Rev. C 79, 024320 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.024320

261. M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi et al., The magnex magnetic spectrometer for double charge exchange reactions. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 463, 334-338 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.04.069

262. F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, Measuring the ions momentum vector with a large acceptance magnetic spectrometer. Nucl. Instr. Methods A 638(1), 74-82 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2011.02.045

263. D. Santonocito, Y. Blumenfeld, The hot GDR revisited. Eur. Phys. J. A 56(11), 279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00279-6

264. A. Bracco, J.J. Gaardhøje et al., Saturation of the width of the giant dipole resonance at high temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62(18), 2080-2083 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2080

265. O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera et al., Giant dipole resonance in the hot and thermalized Ce132 nucleus: damping of collective modes at finite temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(1), 012501 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.012501

266. M. Ciemała, M. Kmiecik, A. Maj, K. Mazurek, A. Bracco, V.L. Kravchuk et al., Giant dipole resonance built on hot rotating nuclei produced during evaporation of light particles from the $^{88}$Mo compound nucleus. Phys. Rev. C 91(5), 054313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.054313

267. D. Santonocito, Y. Blumenfeld, C. Maiolino et al., Mapping the demise of collective motion in nuclei at high excitation energy. Phys. Lett. B 782, 427-432 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.052

268. B. Dey, S.-S. Wang, D. Pandit et al., Exotic nuclear shape due to cluster formation at high angular momentum. Phys. Rev. C 102(3), 031301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.031301

269. C.E. Rolfs, W.S. Rodney, D.D. Clayton, Cauldrons in the Cosmos. Am. J. Phys. 57(2), 188-189 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16074

270. L. Lamia, C. Spitaleri, E. Tognelli et al., Astrophysical impact of the updated $^{9}$Be(p,$\alpha$)$^{6}$Li and $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha$)$^{7}$Be reaction rates as deduced by THM. Astrophys. J. 811(2), 99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/99

271. C. Spitaleri et al., Nuclear astrophysics and the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 52(4), 77 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16077-2

272. C. Spitaleri et al., Astrophysics studies with the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 55(9), 161 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12833-0

273. M. Aliotta, C. Spitaleri et al., Improved information on electron screening in $^{7}$Li(p,$\alpha$) using the Trojan-horse method. Eur. Phys. J. A 9(4), 435-437 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100500070001

274. S. Romano, L. Lamia, C. Spitaleri, C. Li et al., Study of the $^{9}$Be(p,$\alpha$)$^{6}$Li reaction via the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 27(1), 221-225 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2006-08-034-5

275. C. Spitaleri, S.M.R. Puglia, M. La Cognata, L. Lamia, S. Cherubini, A. Cvetinović, G. D'Agata, M. Gulino, G.L. Guardo, I. Indelicato, R.G. Pizzone, G.G. Rapisarda, S. Romano, M.L. Sergi, R. Spartà, S. Tudisco, A. Tumino, M.G. Del Santo, N. Carlin, M.G. Munhoz, F.A. Souza, A.S. de Toledo, A. Mukhamedzhanov, C. Broggini, A. Caciolli, R. Depalo, R. Menegazzo, V. Rigato, I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, Measurement of the $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha_{0}$)$^{7}$Be cross section from 5 keV to 1.5 MeV in a single experiment using the Trojan horse method. Phys. Rev. C 95(3), 035801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.035801

276. G.G. Rapisarda, C. Spitaleri, A. Cvetinović, R. Spartà et al., Study of the $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha_{1}$)$^{7}$Be reaction by means of the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 54(11), 189 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12622-3

277. A. Cvetinovic et al., Molecular screening in nuclear reactions. Phys. Rev. C 92, 065801 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.065801

278. R.G. Pizzone, C. Spitaleri, L. Lamia, C. Bertulani, Mukhamedzhanov et al., Trojan horse particle invariance studied with the Li6(d,$\alpha$)He4 and Li7(p,$\alpha$)He4 reactions. Phys. Rev. C 83(4), 045801 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045801

279. R.G. Pizzone, C. Spitaleri, C.A. Bertulani, A.M. Mukhamedzhanov, Blokhintsev et al., Updated evidence of the Trojan horse particle invariance for the $^{2}$H(d,p)$^{3}$H reaction. Phys. Rev. C 87(2), 025805 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025805. arXiv:1211.0940 [nucl-ex]

280. D. Lattuada et al., Model-independent determination of the astrophysical s factor in laser-induced fusion plasmas. Phys. Rev. C 93, 045808 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.045808

281. D. Vescovi, L. Piersanti, S. Cristallo, M. Busso, F. Vissani et al., Effects of a revised $^{7}$Be e$^{-}$-capture rate on solar neutrino fluxes. A&A 623, 126 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201834993

282. J.N. Bahcall, C.P. Moeller, The $^{7}$Be electron-capture rate. Astrophys. J. 155, 511 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1086/149887

283. J.N.A.V. Gruzinov, Bahcall: screening in thermonuclear reaction rates in the sun. Astrophys. J. 504(2), 996-1001 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/306116
246. A. Corsi, O. Wieland, V.L. Kravchuk et al., Excitation of the dynamical dipole in the charge asymmetric reaction $^{16}$O+$^{116}$Sn. Phys. Lett. B 679(3), 197-202 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.07.045

247. N.S. Martorana, G. Cardella, E.G. Lanza et al., First measurement of the isoscalar excitation above the neutron emission threshold of the Pygmy Dipole Resonance in $^{68}$Ni. Phys. Lett. B 782, 112-116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.019

248. L. Pellegrì et al., private communication

249. A. Bracco, F.C.L. Crespi, E.G. Lanza, Gamma decay of pygmy states from inelastic scattering of ions. Eur. Phys. J. A 51(8), 99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2015-15099-6

250. A. Bracco, E.G. Lanza, A. Tamii, Isoscalar and isovector dipole excitations: nuclear properties from low-lying states and from the isovector giant dipole resonance. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 360-433 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.001

251. D. Savran, T. Aumann, A. Zilges, Experimental studies of the pygmy dipole resonance. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 210-245 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2013.02.003

252. O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera et al., Search for the pygmy dipole resonance in $^{68}$Ni at 600 MeV nucleon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 092502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.092502

253. D.M. Rossi et al., Measurement of the dipole polarizability of the unstable neutron-rich nucleus $^{68}$Ni. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242503 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.242503

254. A. Pagano et al., Fragmentation studies with the CHIMERA detector at LNS in Catania: recent progress. Nucl. Phys. A 734, 504-511 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.01.093

255. M. Papa, A. Bonanno et al., Coherent and incoherent giant dipole resonance $\gamma$-ray emission induced by heavy ion collisions: study of the $^{40}$Ca+$^{48}$Ca system by means of the constrained molecular dynamics model. Phys. Rev. C 68, 034606 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034606

256. M. Papa, Cluster production and nuclear dynamics. J. Phys: Confer. Ser. 863, 012056 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/863/1/012056

257. G. Giuliani, M. Papa, Nucleon-nucleon symmetry potential term and giant dipole resonance $\gamma$-ray emission. Phys. Rev. C 73, 031601 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.73.031601

258. N.K. Glendenning, Equation of state from nuclear and astrophysical evidence. Phys. Rev. C 37, 2733-2743 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.37.2733

259. G. Colò, N. Van Giai, J. Meyer, K. Bennaceur, P. Bonche. Microscopic determination of the nuclear incompressibility within the nonrelativistic framework. Phys. Rev. C 70, 024307 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.024307

260. X. Chen, Y.-W. Lui, H.L. Clark, Y. Tokimoto, D.H. Youngblood, Giant resonances in $^{116}$Sn from 240 MeV $^{6}$Li scattering. Phys. Rev. C 79, 024320 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.024320

261. M. Cavallaro, C. Agodi et al., The magnex magnetic spectrometer for double charge exchange reactions. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 463, 334-338 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.04.069

262. F. Cappuzzello, D. Carbone, M. Cavallaro, Measuring the ions momentum vector with a large acceptance magnetic spectrometer. Nucl. Instr. Methods A 638(1), 74-82 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2011.02.045

263. D. Santonocito, Y. Blumenfeld, The hot GDR revisited. Eur. Phys. J. A 56(11), 279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00279-6

264. A. Bracco, J.J. Gaardhøje et al., Saturation of the width of the giant dipole resonance at high temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62(18), 2080-2083 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2080

265. O. Wieland, A. Bracco, F. Camera et al., Giant dipole resonance in the hot and thermalized Ce132 nucleus: damping of collective modes at finite temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(1), 012501 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.012501

266. M. Ciemała, M. Kmiecik, A. Maj, K. Mazurek, A. Bracco, V.L. Kravchuk et al., Giant dipole resonance built on hot rotating nuclei produced during evaporation of light particles from the $^{88}$Mo compound nucleus. Phys. Rev. C 91(5), 054313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.054313

267. D. Santonocito, Y. Blumenfeld, C. Maiolino et al., Mapping the demise of collective motion in nuclei at high excitation energy. Phys. Lett. B 782, 427-432 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.052

268. B. Dey, S.-S. Wang, D. Pandit et al., Exotic nuclear shape due to cluster formation at high angular momentum. Phys. Rev. C 102(3), 031301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.031301

269. C.E. Rolfs, W.S. Rodney, D.D. Clayton, Cauldrons in the Cosmos. Am. J. Phys. 57(2), 188-189 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16074

270. L. Lamia, C. Spitaleri, E. Tognelli et al., Astrophysical impact of the updated $^{9}$Be(p,$\alpha$)$^{6}$Li and $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha$)$^{7}$Be reaction rates as deduced by THM. Astrophys. J. 811(2), 99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/99

271. C. Spitaleri et al., Nuclear astrophysics and the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 52(4), 77 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16077-2

272. C. Spitaleri et al., Astrophysics studies with the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 55(9), 161 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12833-0

273. M. Aliotta, C. Spitaleri et al., Improved information on electron screening in $^{7}$Li(p,$\alpha$)$\alpha$ using the Trojan-horse method. Eur. Phys. J. A 9(4), 435-437 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100500070001

274. S. Romano, L. Lamia, C. Spitaleri, C. Li et al., Study of the $^{9}$Be(p,$\alpha$)$^{6}$Li reaction via the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 27(1), 221-225 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2006-08-034-5

275. C. Spitaleri, S.M.R. Puglia, M. La Cognata, L. Lamia, S. Cherubini, A. Cvetinović, G. D'Agata, M. Gulino, G.L. Guardo, I. Indelicato, R.G. Pizzone, G.G. Rapisarda, S. Romano, M.L. Sergi, R. Spartà, S. Tudisco, A. Tumino, M.G. Del Santo, N. Carlin, M.G. Munhoz, F.A. Souza, A.S. de Toledo, A. Mukhamedzhanov, C. Broggini, A. Caciolli, R. Depalo, R. Menegazzo, V. Rigato, I. Lombardo, D. Dell'Aquila, Measurement of the $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha_{0}$)$^{7}$Be cross section from 5 keV to 1.5 MeV in a single experiment using the Trojan horse method. Phys. Rev. C 95(3), 035801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.95.035801

276. G.G. Rapisarda, C. Spitaleri, A. Cvetinović, R. Spartà et al., Study of the $^{10}$B(p,$\alpha_{1}$)$^{7}$Be reaction by means of the Trojan Horse Method. Eur. Phys. J. A 54(11), 189 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12622-3

277. A. Cvetinovic et al., Molecular screening in nuclear reactions. Phys. Rev. C 92, 065801 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.065801

278. R.G. Pizzone, C. Spitaleri, L. Lamia, C. Bertulani, Mukhamedzhanov et al., Trojan horse particle invariance studied with the Li6(d,$\alpha$)He4 and Li7(p,$\alpha$)He4 reactions. Phys. Rev. C 83(4), 045801 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045801

279. R.G. Pizzone, C. Spitaleri, C.A. Bertulani, A.M. Mukhamedzhanov, Blokhintsev et al., Updated evidence of the Trojan horse particle invariance for the $^{2}$H(d,p)$^{3}$H reaction. Phys. Rev. C 87(2), 025805 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025805. arXiv:1211.0940 [nucl-ex]

280. D. Lattuada et al., Model-independent determination of the astrophysical s factor in laser-induced fusion plasmas. Phys. Rev. C 93, 045808 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.045808

281. D. Vescovi, L. Piersanti, S. Cristallo, M. Busso, F. Vissani et al., Effects of a revised $^{7}$Be e$^{-}$-capture rate on solar neutrino fluxes. A&A 623, 126 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201834993

282. J.N. Bahcall, C.P. Moeller, The $^{7}$Be electron-capture rate. Astrophys. J. 155, 511 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1086/149887

283. J.N.A.V. Gruzinov, Bahcall: screening in thermonuclear reaction rates in the sun. Astrophys. J. 504(2), 996-1001 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1086/306116