Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Fermion mediated pairing in the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida to Efimov transition regime

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports two fermion-mediated scattering resonances in an ultracold Cs-Li mixture: one at -1,100 Bohr radii that forms Cs2 pairs, and one at -1,800 Bohr radii that forms Cs2Li trimers, linking RKKY pairing to Efimov physics.

desk verdict Genuinely new experimental observation of two fermion-mediated resonances in the Cs-Li degenerate mixture with a clean thermal crossover, but the theoretical assignment of which resonance is Cs2 pairing is shakier than the paper suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06266 v2 pith:O5ZBL7HI submitted 2025-02-10 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Geyue Cai , Henry Ando , Sarah McCusker , Cheng Chin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph PACS 67.85.-d34.50.Cx03.75.Ss
keywords RKKYinteractionEfimovphysicsBose-Fermimixturefermion-mediatedpairingFeshbachresonance133Cs-6Liquantummany-bodychemistrydegenerateFermigas
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the boundary between RKKY-mediated interactions and Efimov physics is not a sharp divide but a continuous transition governed by fermion-mediated binding. In a degenerate gas of 133Cs bosons immersed in 6Li fermions, the authors identify two distinct scattering resonances as the interspecies attraction is increased: a resonance at $a_1=-1{,}100(100)\,a_0$ attributed to fermion-mediated formation of Cs$_2$ pairs, and a weaker one at $a_2=-1{,}800(100)\,a_0$ attributed to formation of Cs$_2$Li trimers. Both lie well between the weak-coupling RKKY regime and the thermal Efimov resonance at $-3{,}300\,a_0$, and both vanish when the mixture is heated above degeneracy. If correct, this shows that the many-body Fermi sea shifts and splits the three-body Efimov bound-state physics into two-body-mediated pairing processes, connecting condensed-matter pairing ideas to few-body nuclear physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective potential $V(R)$ between two Cs atoms mediated by the Fermi sea of Li atoms. In the weak-coupling limit it is the RKKY potential $V_{\mathrm{RKKY}}(R)=E_F \frac{8\epsilon^2}{\pi}\frac{r\cos r-\sin r}{r^4}$, with $r=2k_F R$ and $\epsilon=|k_F a_{BF}|$; the same potential, continued to strong coupling, includes Efimov physics. The argument is carried by the variable-phase equation $da(R)/dR=-(M/\hbar^2)V_{\mathrm{RKKY}}(R)[R-a(R)]^2$, whose diverging scattering length $a_{\mathrm{eff}}$ signals the pairing resonance, and by the mass-ratio enhancement $\eta=(1-g_{BF}n_B/E_F)^{1/2}\approx2.2$ that renormalizes the Fermi wavenumber $k_F^*=\eta k_F$ and pushes the predicted bound state into the perturbative regime. The paper's Eq. (1) summarizes the prediction $a_{th}=\alpha/k_F^*\,\sqrt{m/M}=-1{,}440\,a_0$, with $\alpha=-2.40\ldots$ signaling the bound-state threshold.

What would settle it

Compute the Cs-Cs bound-state threshold with the full RKKY+Efimov potential without truncating at leading order in $\epsilon$, using the experimental mass ratio $m_{Cs}/m_{Li}\approx22.1$ and density enhancement $\eta\approx2.2$; if the predicted pairing resonance falls outside $a_1=-1{,}100(100)\,a_0$, the assignment fails. Experimentally, spectroscopy that finds no Cs$_2$ molecules at $a_1$ nor Cs$_2$Li at $a_2$ would falsify the reactive-scattering picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a degenerate 133Cs-6Li Bose-Fermi mixture in the RKKY-Efimov transition regime, the Fermi gas mediates reactive scattering that appears as two distinct resonances: Cs+Cs$\to$Cs$_2$ at $a_1=-1{,}100(100)\,a_0$ and, at stronger attraction, Li+Cs$_2$$\to$Cs$_2$Li at $a_2=-1{,}800(100)\,a_0$. These many-body resonances are distinct from the Feshbach resonance ($a_{BF}\to\pm\infty$) and from the thermal Efimov resonance at $-3{,}300\,a_0$, and they disappear in the classical (non-degenerate) regime, where the single three-body Efimov resonance is recovered. The measured $a_1$ is captured in fair agreement by a bound-state calculation using the RKKY potential with mass-ratio enhancement ($a_{th}=-1{,}440\,a_0$) and by a combined RKKY+Efimov theory ($-1{,}600\,a_0$); the larger magnitude of $a_2$ relative to $a_1$ is explained by the lighter mass of the fermion requiring stronger attraction to bind.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted resonance positions rest on a leading-order RKKY potential whose expansion parameter $\epsilon=|k_F a_{BF}|$ must be much smaller than one, while the measured resonance sits near $|k_F a_1|\approx1$; the paper leans on the large mass ratio to keep the bound state in the perturbative window, but that is the load-bearing assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the BEC transition temperature, the thermal Efimov resonance at $-3{,}300\,a_0$ is replaced by two fermion-mediated resonances at weaker interspecies attraction, $a_1=-1{,}100(100)\,a_0$ and $a_2=-1{,}800(100)\,a_0$.
  • The two resonances correspond to distinct reactive channels, Cs+Cs$\to$Cs$_2$ and Li+Cs$_2$$\to$Cs$_2$Li, so the Fermi gas acts as a catalyst for molecular formation rather than being consumed.
  • Increasing the Fermi density pushes the pairing resonance toward smaller $|a_{BF}|$, implying that the Fermi sea can continuously tune the binding of heavy impurities.
  • Heavy particles bind before light ones in the many-body regime, consistent with the mass scaling $\sqrt{m/M}$ in the RKKY bound-state condition.
  • In the thermal (non-degenerate) limit, the two many-body resonances merge into the single three-body Efimov resonance, recovering the known Cs-Cs-Li trimer physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the interpretation is right, direct detection of Cs$_2$ molecules at $a_1$ and Cs$_2$Li at $a_2$ should be possible with radio-frequency association or momentum-resolved spectroscopy; this would cleanly separate mediated pairing from ordinary three-body loss.
  • The same density-dependent shift of the pairing resonance might be used in other large-mass-ratio Bose-Fermi mixtures to control pair size and interaction sign, effectively engineering the mediated interaction strength in situ.
  • The catalyst role of the Fermi gas suggests that the mixture could serve as a controllable reaction platform for quantum chemistry, with the Fermi sea setting the binding threshold.
  • One might expect a similar two-resonance signature in the strongly interacting regime of other heavy-boson/light-fermion systems, provided the mass ratio is large enough to push the bound state into the perturbative window.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of a degenerate mixture of bosonic 133Cs and fermionic 6Li tuned across an interspecies Feshbach resonance. Using phase-imprinted density waves in the Cs BEC and simultaneous loss/heating measurements of both species, the authors identify two resonances in the strongly interacting regime: a1 = -1,100(100) a0, seen in Cs dispersion, BEC decay, and excited-fraction growth, and a2 = -1,800(100) a0, seen in Li trap loss. The a1 resonance is absent without the Fermi gas and is interpreted as a fermion-mediated Cs-Cs pairing resonance leading to Cs2 formation; a2 is interpreted as Li binding to a Cs2 pair forming Cs2Li. Temperature-resolved measurements show that these features merge into the known Efimov resonance at aBF = -3,300 a0 in the thermal regime. The authors compare a1 with two theoretical benchmarks: a leading-order RKKY calculation giving -1,440 a0 and a strong-coupling model giving -1,600 a0.

Significance. If the assignments hold, the paper provides the first evidence for a continuous crossover from RKKY-mediated pairing to Efimov physics in a many-body environment, connecting two-, three-, and many-body quantum phenomena. The qualitative finding is strongly supported: several independent observables locate a1 consistently, the resonance is absent without the degenerate Fermi gas, and the temperature dependence in Fig. 4 connects the many-body features to the thermal Efimov resonance. The paper also presents theoretical predictions for the resonance positions that are derived independently of the data. However, the quantitative theoretical identification of a1 and a2 is not yet secure, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (1); Supplementary Material, Eqs. (11)-(14)] The perturbative justification for the leading-order RKKY benchmark is not quantitatively secure. The large-mass-ratio argument gives |k*_F a_th| = 2.40 sqrt(m/M) ≈ 0.51 when the enhanced Fermi wavenumber k*_F = η k_F (≈ 2.2 k_F) is used, so the O(ε^3) terms omitted from Eq. (11) are of order 50% of the leading term at the predicted binding threshold. The quoted prediction a_th = -1,440 a0 should therefore be supplemented with an estimate of the next-order correction or a nonperturbative calculation before it is used to identify a1 = -1,100(100) a0.
  2. [Main text comparison with Ref. [39]; Supplementary Fig. S3] The density dependence of the strong-coupling model appears to conflict with the assignment of a1 to Cs-Cs pairing. Supplementary Fig. S3 shows that at the maximum fermion density stated to occur on the BEC (10 n_F) the Cs-Cs pairing resonance is at -1,720 a0, much closer to the measured Li-loss resonance a2 = -1,800(100) a0 than to a1 = -1,100(100) a0. Since the BEC dispersion and decay measurements are dominated by the high-density center, the authors should compare the predicted resonance position at the relevant local density and explain why the quoted -1,600 a0 (rather than the 10 n_F value) is used; on the present evidence the theoretical benchmark does not clearly support the reactive-channel assignments in Eqs. (2) and (3).
  3. [Main text, Eqs. (2)-(3) and Fig. 4] The experimental data firmly establish two fermion-density-dependent loss features that are absent without the Fermi gas, but the molecular identities (Cs2 and Cs2Li) are inferred rather than directly measured. The inference relies on the theoretical benchmarks discussed above; given their current uncertainty, the central statement that a1 and a2 are fermion-mediated pairing and trimer resonances should be softened or supported by additional calculations or measurements (e.g., product detection or loss-rate scaling with density).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout the manuscript] Typographical errors should be corrected, including 'an Bose-Fermi mixture' in the abstract, 'legnth' in the fourth section, and 'preciously' in the paragraph discussing the Efimov resonance.
  2. [Fig. 4] The statement that 'a gap between the resonances in the Cs BEC and the Li Fermi gas widens' is based on a small number of temperature points; please specify how the resonance positions were determined at each temperature and whether the apparent merging at T > Tc is a fit artifact.
  3. [Supplementary Material, Eq. (6) and the fitting procedure] The two-step fitting procedure, in which only the left side of the frequency data is used, should be described in the main text, because the extracted a1 uncertainty does not reflect the model dependence.
  4. [Main text, Eq. (1)] The symbols η and α are used in Eq. (1) without definition at first use; please define them explicitly in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; theoretical benchmarks are independent calculations, and the only near-loop (the mean-field enhancement factor evaluated near the observed resonance) is independently confirmed by imaging.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental result is the observation of loss/dispersion resonances at a1=-1100(100) a0 and a2=-1800(100) a0. The extraction of a1 uses an explicitly empirical model (Eq. 6, with ares as a fit parameter), so it is not presented as a derivation. The theoretical comparison for a1 rests on two independent calculations: the leading-order RKKY variable-phase equation (Supplementary Eqs. 13-14) giving a_th=-1440 a0, and the strong-coupling RKKY+Efimov model of Ref. [39] giving a_th=-1600 a0. Neither model uses the measured a1 as an input parameter; the RKKY calculation solves for the bound-state condition from the potential, and the Ref. [39] model is an external published theory. The enhancement factor eta is estimated from a mean-field expression (Supplementary Eq. 10) evaluated near the observed resonance, which creates a mild self-consistency element, but the paper also reports an independent imaging measurement of the Li density enhancement (eta=2.0-2.1) that does not use the resonance position a1, so eta is not a free parameter fitted to the target. The identification of a1 as Cs+Cs->Cs2 and a2 as Li+Cs2->Cs2Li is a physical interpretation supported by the mass-ratio argument, not a circular derivation. The acknowledged limitations--the leading-order RKKY expansion parameter being O(0.5) at the measured coupling and the empirical model failing above the resonance--are correctness/validity concerns, not circularity. Prior self-citations (Refs. [4,8,31]) are external experimental results, not unverified assertions. Thus the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, a leading-order RKKY potential whose expansion is strained at the observed coupling, an adiabatic Thomas-Fermi description of the Fermi gas, and an interpretive identification of loss peaks with Cs2 and Cs2Li formation. The empirical fit parameters used to extract a1 and a2 are disclosed, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • a1, Cs-Cs mediated resonance position = -1,100(100) a0
    Weighted average of resonance positions extracted from dispersion (Fig. 2e-f), BEC decay rate, and excited fraction growth rate (Fig. 3c-d). Central experimental result; compared with theory but not derived from first principles.
  • a2, Li loss resonance position = -1,800(100) a0
    Weighted average of Li decay rate resonances (Fig. 3e and Table I). Central experimental result; no quantitative first-principles prediction is provided in the paper.
  • Empirical resonance model parameters (Δ, ares, γ) in Eq. (6) = ares: -1,030(20), -1,230(50), -1,220(90) a0 for 20k, 10k, 5k Li; Δ and γ not reported numerically
    Ad hoc complex effective scattering length model used to extract resonance positions from dispersion data. The resonance position ares is a fit parameter, not a prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation: light Li fermions move fast relative to heavy Cs atoms, so the fermion-mediated interaction between two Cs atoms can be described by a static effective potential V(r).
    Invoked in the main text (Fig. 1) and in the derivation of the RKKY potential in Eq. (11). Valid for large mass ratio mCs/mLi ≈ 22.1, but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Leading-order RKKY potential (Eq. 11) is quantitatively valid at the binding threshold used to derive Eq. (14).
    The RKKY expansion requires |kF aBF| << 1, while the observed resonance is at |kF a1| ≈ 1. The authors argue the mass ratio makes the bound state appear in the perturbative regime, but if higher-order or Efimov corrections are significant, a_th is unreliable.
  • domain assumption The Fermi gas remains in local equilibrium (Thomas-Fermi) during and after the magnetic field jump, so the local Fermi wavenumber is enhanced by eta = sqrt(1 - gBF nB/EF).
    Supplementary Eq. (8)-(10). Justified by the short Fermi time scale (hbar/EF ≈ 23 μs) versus the 0.8 ms field jump, and supported by an independent imaging measurement of eta = 2.0-2.1, but still a modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed loss/dispersion resonances at a1 and a2 correspond to bound-state formation (Cs2 and Cs2Li) rather than other loss mechanisms.
    This interpretive assumption underlies the reaction equations (2)-(3) and the main physical picture. No direct detection of the molecules is reported, so alternative mechanisms are not experimentally excluded.
  • standard math The variable phase equation method (Eq. 13) correctly computes the scattering length from the effective potential.
    Standard quantum scattering method used in Supplementary Eq. (13) to estimate the bound-state condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fermion mediated pairing in the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida to Efimov transition regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5ZBL7HI

@misc{pith2026250206266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fermion mediated pairing in the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida to Efimov transition regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5ZBL7HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06266}
}
read the original abstract

The Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yoshida (RKKY) interaction and Efimov physics are two distinct quantum phenomena in condensed matter and nuclear physics, respectively. The RKKY interaction describes correlations between impurities mediated by an electron gas, while Efimov physics describes universal bound states of three particles with resonant interactions. Recently, both effects have been observed in Bose-Fermi mixtures in the weak and resonant interaction regimes, respectively. Intriguing conjectures exist to elucidate how the two phenomena meet in the transition regime where the mixture is strongly interacting. In this work, we explore the RKKY-Efimov transition in a mixture of bosonic Cs-133 and fermionic Li-6 near a tunable interspecies Feshbach resonance. From dispersion and relaxation measurements, we find that the transition is highlighted by a fermion-mediated scattering resonance between Cs atoms and a weaker resonance on Li atoms. These resonances represent reactive scattering of Cs and Li atoms in the many-body regime, which reduces to an Efimov resonance in the thermal gas regime. Our observation demonstrates the intriguing interplay of two-, three-, and many-body physics in an Bose-Fermi mixture that connects condensed matter physics, nuclear physics and quantum many-body chemistry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum mixtures of heavy bosonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. In the transition regime where RKKY and Efimov physics meet, the Bose-Fermi mixture is strongly inter￾acting with the scattering length comparable with the Fermi length scale |aBF| ≈ k −1 F . Novel quantum phenom￾ena are conjectured in this regime, including fermionic zero sound [33], p-wave fermionic superfluidity [11, 24], Bose-Fermi droplets [34], and the decay of the mixture, which may simulate the collapse dyna… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dispersion of Cs BEC embedded in a Li degenerate Fermi gas. (a) We imprint a periodic phase on the Cs condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Resonant decay and excitation Cs BECs induced by the Li degenerate Fermi gas. (a) Example in situ images of Li and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fermion mediated resonances in the thermal and quantum regimes. (a) Sample images with 30,000 Cs atoms and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    T. Enss, B. Tran, M. Rautenberg, M. Gerken, E. Lippi, M. Drescher, B. Zhu, M. Weidemueller, and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. A 102, 066321 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Nature Physics 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  3. [2]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  4. [3]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier- Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds,...

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    DeSalvo, K

    B. DeSalvo, K. Patel, G. Cai, and C. Chin, Nature 568, 61 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    H. Edri, B. Raz, N. Matzliah, N. Davidson, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 163401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Fritsche, C

    I. Fritsche, C. Baroni, E. Dobler, E. Kirilov, B. Huang, R. Grimm, G. M. Bruun, and P. Massignan, Phys. Rev. A 103, 053314 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Physical Review Letters 128, 153401 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Patel, G

    K. Patel, G. Cai, H. Ando, and C. Chin, Physical Review Letters 131, 083003 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Baroni, B

    C. Baroni, B. Huang, I. Fritsche, E. Dobler, G. Anich, E. Kirilov, R. Grimm, M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, P. Massignan, and G. M. Bruun, Nature Physics 20, 68 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Santamore and E

    D. Santamore and E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. A 78, 013619 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    Nishida, Phys

    Y. Nishida, Phys. Rev. A 79, 013629 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    De and I

    S. De and I. B. Spielman, Applied Physics B 114, 527 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Arg¨ uello-Luengo, A

    J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 083401 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Paredes, G

    R. Paredes, G. Bruun, and A. Camacho-Guardian, Phys- ical Review A 110, 030101 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields , Vol

    S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields , Vol. 2 (Cam- bridge university press, 1995)

    1995

  9. [16]

    Tinkham, Introduction to superconductivity , Vol

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to superconductivity , Vol. 1 (Courier Corporation, 2004)

    2004

  10. [17]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  11. [18]

    Kasuya, Progress of theoretical physics 16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, Progress of theoretical physics 16, 45 (1956)

    1956

  12. [19]

    Yosida, Phys

    K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  13. [20]

    M. J. Bijlsma, B. A. Heringa, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 61, 053601 (2000)

    2000

  14. [21]

    Heiselberg, C

    H. Heiselberg, C. J. Pethick, H. Smith, and L. Viverit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2418 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    Viverit, Phys

    L. Viverit, Phys. Rev. A 66, 023605 (2002)

    2002

  16. [23]

    Matera, Phys

    F. Matera, Phys. Rev. A 68, 043624 (2003)

    2003

  17. [24]

    Kinnunen, Z

    J. Kinnunen, Z. Wu, and G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253402 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    D. V. Efremov and L. Viverit, Phys. Rev. B 65, 134519 (2002)

    2002

  19. [26]

    A. Y. Chuang, H. Q. Bui, A. Christianen, Y. Zhang, Y. Ni, D. Ahmed-Braun, C. Robens, and M. W. Zwier- lein, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04820 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Efimov, Physics Letters B 33, 563 (1970)

    V. Efimov, Physics Letters B 33, 563 (1970)

    1970

  21. [28]

    Naidon and S

    P. Naidon and S. Endo, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 056001 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    S. Tung, C. Parker, J. Johansen, C. Chin, Y. Wang, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 87, 010702(R) (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    M. Repp, R. Pires, J. Ulmanis, R. Heck, E. D. Kuhnle, M. Weidem¨ uller, and E. Tiemann, Physical Review A 87, 010701 (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    Johansen, B

    J. Johansen, B. DeSalvo, K. Patel, and C. Chin, Nature Physics 13, 731 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Pires, J

    R. Pires, J. Ulmanis, S. H¨ afner, M. Repp, A. Arias, E. D. Kuhnle, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Physical Review Letters 112, 250404 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    X. Shen, N. Davidson, G. M. Bruun, M. Sun, and Z. Wu, Physical Review Letters 132, 033401 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Rakshit, T

    D. Rakshit, T. Karpiuk, M. Brewcyzk, and M. Gajda, SciPost Phys. 6, 079 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Karpiuk, M

    T. Karpiuk, M. Niko lajuk, M. Gajda, and M. Brewczyk, Sci Rep 11, 2286 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    N. G. Nygaard and N. T. Zinner, New Journal of Physics 16, 023026 (2014)

    2014

  30. [37]

    Cui, Phys

    X. Cui, Phys. Rev. A 90, 041603 (2014)

    2014

  31. [38]

    Sun and X

    M. Sun and X. Cui, Physical Review A99, 060701 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Fisher, O

    S. Fisher, O. Ogunnaike, and L. Levitov, Physical Re- view A 109, 043323 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Guo and H

    Y. Guo and H. Tajima, Phys. Rev. A 109, 013319 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    See supplementary materials

  35. [43]

    Berninger, A

    M. Berninger, A. Zenesini, B. Huang, W. Harm, H.-C. N¨ agerl, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032517 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Shammass, S

    I. Shammass, S. Rinott, A. Berkovitz, R. Schley, and J. Steinhauer, Physical Review Letters 109, 195301 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Kraemer, M

    T. Kraemer, M. Mark, P. Waldburger, J. G. Danzl, C. Chin, B. Engeser, A. D. Lange, K. Pilch, A. Jaakkola, H.-C. N¨ agerl, and R. Grimm, Nature 440, 315 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Veyron, V

    R. Veyron, V. Mancois, J.-B. Gerent, G. Baclet, P. Bouyer, and S. Bernon, Physical Review Research 4, 033033 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Pethick and H

    C. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Kavoulakis and C

    G. Kavoulakis and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1563 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    S. K. Yip, Phys. Rev. A 64, 023609 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Zheng, C.-R

    D.-C. Zheng, C.-R. Ye, L. Wen, and R. Liao, Phys. Rev. A 103, L021301 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Viverit and S

    L. Viverit and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063604 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    Zheng, Y.-X

    D.-C. Zheng, Y.-X. Liao, W. Lin, and R. Liao, Physical Review A 109, 023327 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Tsurumi and M

    T. Tsurumi and M. Wadati, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan 69, 97 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    S. T. Chui and V. N. Ryzhov, Phys. Rev. A 69, 043607 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    fast kinetics mode

    V. V. Babikov, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 10, 271 (1967). 7 Supplementary Material for Fermion mediated pairing of bosons in the strong coupling regime Geyue Cai, Henry Ando, Sarah McCusker, and Cheng Chin The James Franck Institute, Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physic...

    1967

  48. [56]

    S1 is also included

    The additional 5,000 Li dataset in Fig. S1 is also included. The weighted average and standard deviation of all results for dispersion, BEC decay rate, and excited fraction growth rate are summarized as a1 = 1,100(100) a0. The weighted average of the Li decay rate resonance po...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.