pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30986 · v1 · pith:HAFQEFHGnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · cond-mat.supr-con· physics.atom-ph

Dimensionality of a strongly interacting 2D-3D Fermi-Fermi mixture from the perspective of superfluid instability and excitation properties

Haruka Takeda , Saki Hirai , Shumpei Iwasaki , Yoji Ohashi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.supr-conphysics.atom-ph
keywords Fermi gasmixed dimensionalitypairing fluctuationssuperfluid transition temperaturepseudogapT-matrix approximation2D-3D mixtureCooper pairing
0
0 comments X

The pith

In a 2D-3D Fermi mixture, pairing fluctuations suppress the superfluid transition temperature to zero while the pseudogap retains three-dimensional character.

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

The paper investigates strong-coupling properties of an attractively interacting Fermi gas with Cooper-pair formation between atoms in different dimensional bands. Using the self-consistent T-matrix approximation, it tracks how the BCS superfluid transition temperature Tc changes from the 3D-3D case to the 2D-3D limit across interaction strengths. In the 2D-3D limit, Tc is driven to zero by pairing fluctuations that are enhanced by the mixed dimensionality, even though mean-field theory predicts a finite value in the strong-coupling regime. The 2D component is shown to dominate the instability, producing the same vanishing Tc seen in pure 2D systems. In contrast, the pseudogap exhibits 3D character, indicating that the effective dimensionality of the system depends on the observable.

Core claim

In the 2D-3D limit, while the mean-field BCS theory predicts Tc > 0 in the strong-coupling regime, Tc is remarkably suppressed down to zero by pairing fluctuations that are strongly enhanced by the mixed-dimensionality of the system. The lower-dimensional (2D) component dominates the superfluid instability, so that the vanishing Tc is the same phenomenon as that in the 2D-2D case. The pseudogap phenomenon exhibits a 3D character of the 2D-3D system.

What carries the argument

Self-consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) that includes pairing fluctuations to determine the superfluid instability and pseudogap in mixed 2D-3D bands.

If this is right

  • The 2D component's dominance makes the vanishing Tc identical to the pure 2D-2D case.
  • The same suppression can already be seen at the mean-field level through the propagation of the Goldstone mode.
  • The pseudogap shows 3D character even as Tc vanishes, so different observables can report different dimensionalities.
  • Dimensionality of a strongly interacting Fermi gas is not a single property but depends on the measured quantity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hybrid-dimensional systems may allow selective tuning where superfluid order is suppressed but precursor pairing signatures persist.
  • Similar mixed-dimensionality effects could appear in other observables such as specific heat or collective modes.
  • Experiments varying the population or confinement of the 2D versus 3D components could map the crossover where Tc reaches zero.

Load-bearing premise

The self-consistent T-matrix approximation remains quantitatively reliable when the system has mixed 2D-3D character and the 2D component dominates the instability.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of a finite superfluid transition temperature in the strong-coupling regime of a 2D-3D Fermi mixture would contradict the predicted suppression to zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30986 by Haruka Takeda, Saki Hirai, Shumpei Iwasaki, Yoji Ohashi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Mean-field BCS results for (a) superfluid order pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) SCTMA self-energy Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Difference of Fermi surfaces between spin- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Calculated BCS-type superfluid phase transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Difference between 2D-2D and 2D-3D mixtures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a1)-(a3) Intensity of Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Calculated BCS superfluid order parameter ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Calculated velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We theoretically investigate strong-coupling properties of an attractively interacting Fermi atomic gas, where the Cooper-pair formation occurs between atoms belonging to different dimensional bands. Including pairing fluctuations within the framework of the self-consistent $T$-matrix approximation (SCTMA), we examine how the BCS-type superfluid phase transition temperature $T_\mathrm{c}$ varies as one moves from the 3D-3D to the 2D-3D system, in the wide parameter region with respect to the strength of the pairing interaction. In the 2D-3D limit, we find that, while the mean-field BCS theory predicts $T_\mathrm{c}>0$ in the strong-coupling regime, $T_\mathrm{c}$ is remarkably suppressed down to zero by pairing fluctuations that are strongly enhanced by the mixed-dimensionality of the system. As the origin of this, we clarify that the lower-dimensional (2D) component dominates the superfluid instability, so that the vanishing $T_\mathrm{c}$ is the same phenomenon as that in the 2D-2D case. We also point out that this can already be seen in the mean-field level, when one examines the propagation of the Goldstone mode. On the other hand, we find that the pseudogap phenomenon, which is known as a precursor of Cooper-pair formation, exhibits a 3D character of the 2D-3D system. These results indicate that the dimensionality of a strongly interacting Fermi gas depends on what we observe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper investigates strong-coupling properties of an attractively interacting Fermi gas with Cooper-pair formation between atoms in different dimensional bands. Using the self-consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) to include pairing fluctuations, it examines the BCS superfluid transition temperature Tc as the system varies from 3D-3D to 2D-3D. In the 2D-3D limit, mean-field theory predicts Tc > 0 in the strong-coupling regime, but SCTMA shows Tc suppressed to zero due to enhanced pairing fluctuations dominated by the 2D component; this is argued to be visible already in the mean-field Goldstone-mode propagation. The pseudogap is found to retain 3D character, indicating that dimensionality depends on the observable considered.

Significance. If the SCTMA results hold, the work shows that mixed-dimensional Fermi gases can exhibit different effective dimensionalities for superfluid instability versus pseudogap phenomena, clarifying how 2D fluctuations can dominate Tc while 3D features persist in other quantities. This provides a concrete example of observable-dependent dimensionality in strongly interacting systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (results on Tc in 2D-3D limit): The central claim that Tc is suppressed to zero rests on SCTMA remaining quantitatively reliable when the 2D component dominates the instability. No benchmarking against QMC, FRG, or exact 2D-2D limits is reported for the mixed-dimensional geometry, and SCTMA is known to overestimate Tc in pure 2D while missing BKT physics; this directly affects the quantitative conclusion of Tc=0 and the separation from the 3D pseudogap.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (mean-field Goldstone mode analysis): The statement that the vanishing Tc 'can already be seen in the mean-field level' via Goldstone-mode propagation is load-bearing for the claim that 2D dominance is intrinsic rather than an SCTMA artifact, but the dispersion relation is not compared to the pure 2D-2D case or tested for consistency with the mixed-dimensional density of states.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§2] Notation for the mixed-dimensional interaction strength and the definition of the 2D-3D limit should be clarified in the formalism section to avoid ambiguity when comparing to pure 2D-2D results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major points below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (results on Tc in 2D-3D limit): The central claim that Tc is suppressed to zero rests on SCTMA remaining quantitatively reliable when the 2D component dominates the instability. No benchmarking against QMC, FRG, or exact 2D-2D limits is reported for the mixed-dimensional geometry, and SCTMA is known to overestimate Tc in pure 2D while missing BKT physics; this directly affects the quantitative conclusion of Tc=0 and the separation from the 3D pseudogap.

    Authors: We agree that SCTMA is an approximation with known limitations in purely 2D systems, where it overestimates Tc and does not capture BKT physics. Our claim is that the 2D component dominates the instability in the mixed-dimensional case, leading to Tc suppression to zero, consistent with the 2D-2D phenomenology. While direct QMC/FRG benchmarks for the mixed geometry are not included (and would require substantial additional effort), the qualitative result follows from the enhanced 2D fluctuations and is corroborated by the mean-field Goldstone-mode analysis. In revision we will expand the discussion of SCTMA limitations and its applicability here. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (mean-field Goldstone mode analysis): The statement that the vanishing Tc 'can already be seen in the mean-field level' via Goldstone-mode propagation is load-bearing for the claim that 2D dominance is intrinsic rather than an SCTMA artifact, but the dispersion relation is not compared to the pure 2D-2D case or tested for consistency with the mixed-dimensional density of states.

    Authors: We will add a direct comparison of the Goldstone-mode dispersion between the 2D-3D and pure 2D-2D cases in the revised manuscript. The mixed-dimensional density of states produces a low-energy dispersion that exhibits 2D character, which can be derived from the mean-field gap equation; this supports that the Tc suppression is intrinsic to the dimensionality rather than an SCTMA-specific effect. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; SCTMA calculation of Tc suppression is independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper applies the standard self-consistent T-matrix approximation (SCTMA) to compute Tc and pseudogap properties in the mixed 2D-3D geometry. The reported suppression of Tc to zero in the 2D-3D limit follows directly from solving the fluctuation equations for that geometry; it is not obtained by fitting a parameter to a subset of data and renaming the output as a prediction, nor does any load-bearing step reduce to a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The mean-field Goldstone-mode observation is likewise an independent diagnostic within the same framework. No self-definitional, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming patterns appear. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as the known pure-2D and pure-3D limits of SCTMA.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the self-consistent T-matrix approximation in a mixed-dimensional setting; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, and no new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The self-consistent T-matrix approximation accurately incorporates pairing fluctuations in systems with mixed 2D-3D dimensionality.
    The entire analysis is performed within this framework; its reliability for the mixed case is assumed rather than derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5835 in / 1285 out tokens · 22176 ms · 2026-06-28T20:10:19.728801+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references

  1. [1]

    ↑” and “ ↓

    + A↓ (p, ω = 0), where the peaks correspond to the Fermi surfaces. DOS is normalized by ρ0 = mkF/π . Eq. (31) that single-particle excitations gradually lose the pz-dependence. Indeed, while the pz-dependent pseudo- gap (dip around 0 <∼ ω/ǫ F<∼ 0. 5) is seen in the pz-resolved DOSρ↑ (pz,ω ) when t↑/ǫ = 0. 04 (panel (a1)), it becomes almost pz-independent ...

  2. [2]

    3D-like” ef- fective scattering length [31] in Eq. (4). If we remove this divergence by using the “2D-like

    at T = 0, as a function of the interaction strength (kFaeff )− 1 and the dimensional imbalance tuned by t↑ . (Note that t↓ /ǫ F = 1.) can be written as H = |∆ |2 U + ∑ p ˆΨ † p(ξ+, pτ3 +ξ− , pτ0 − ∆ τ1) ˆΨ p + ∑ p ξ− p, ↓ − U 4 ∑ q,i =1, 2 ρi, qρi, − q, (A1) where ˆΨ † p ≡ (c† p, ↑,c − p, ↓) is the Nambu field and the Pauli matrices τi=1, 2, 3 act on the pa...

  3. [3]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Nat. Phys. 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Giorgini, L

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod . Phys. 80, 1215 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Randeria and E

    M. Randeria and E. Taylor, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 209 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Ohashi, H

    Y. Ohashi, H. Tajima, and P. van Wyk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, 103739 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)

    2004

  11. [11]

    Bartenstein, A

    M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120401 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Bourdel, L

    T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, J. Zhang, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 050401 (2004)

    2004

  13. [13]

    M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Nature 435, 1047 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012708 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Chevy, Phys

    F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063628 (2006)

    2006

  16. [16]

    Schirotzek, C.-H

    A. Schirotzek, C.-H. Wu, A. Sommer, and M. W. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 230402 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Cetina, M

    M. Cetina, M. Jag, R. S. Lous, I. Fritsche, J. T. M. Wal- raven, R. Grimm, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, R. Schmidt, M. Knap, and E. Demler, Science 354, 96 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Tempere, S

    J. Tempere, S. N. Klimin, and J. T. Devreese, Phys. Rev. B 79, 134506 (2009)

    2009

  19. [19]

    S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, and J. T. Devreese, New J. Phys. 14, 103044 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    Greiner, I

    M. Greiner, I. Bloch, O. Mandel, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 160405 (2001)

    2001

  21. [21]

    Moritz, T

    H. Moritz, T. St¨ oferle, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 91, 250402 (2003)

    2003

  22. [22]

    B. L. Tolra, K. M. O’Hara, J. H. Huckans, W. D. Phillips, S. L. Rolston, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 190401 (2004)

    2004

  23. [23]

    Kinoshita, T

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, Science 305, 1125 (2004)

    2004

  24. [24]

    Paredes, A

    B. Paredes, A. Widera, M. Murg, O. Mandel, S. F¨ olling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 429, 277 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    Catani, G

    J. Catani, G. Barontini, G. Lamporesi, F. Rabatti, G. Thalhammer, F. Minardi, S. Stringari, and M. In- guscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 140401 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, L. Bayha, I. Boettcher, D. Kedar, P. A. Murthy, M. Neidig, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 230401 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Masaki, S

    A. Masaki, S. Tsukada, and H. Mori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 054301 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    Massignan and Y

    P. Massignan and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A 74, 013616 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    L. J. LeBlanc and J. H. Thywissen, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053612 (2007)

    2007

  30. [30]

    Lamporesi, J

    G. Lamporesi, J. Catani, G. Barontini, Y. Nishida, M. In - guscio, and F. Minardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 153202 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    Sch¨ afer, N

    F. Sch¨ afer, N. Mizukami, P. Yu, S. Koibuchi, A. Bouscal, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A 98, 051602 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Nishida and S

    Y. Nishida and S. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170401 (2008)

    2008

  33. [33]

    Iskin and A

    M. Iskin and A. L. Suba¸ sı, Phys. Rev. A 82, 063628 14 (2010)

    2010

  34. [34]

    X. Yang, B. Huang, and S. Wan, Eur. Phys. J. B 83, 445 (2011)

    2011

  35. [35]

    Okamoto, L

    J. Okamoto, L. Mathey, and W.-M. Huang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053633 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  37. [37]

    P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 158, 383 (1967)

    1967

  38. [38]

    Haussmann, Phys

    R. Haussmann, Phys. Rev. B 49, 12975 (1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    Haussmann, Self-consistent Quantum-Field Theory and Bosonization for Strongly Correlated Electron Sys- tems, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs (Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    R. Haussmann, Self-consistent Quantum-Field Theory and Bosonization for Strongly Correlated Electron Sys- tems, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs (Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    2003

  40. [40]

    Haussmann, W

    R. Haussmann, W. Rantner, S. Cerrito, and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 75, 023610 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    K. B. Gubbels and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 140407 (2008)

    2008

  42. [42]

    J. E. Baarsma, K. B. Gubbels, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 82, 013624 (2010)

    2010

  43. [43]

    T. Enss, R. Haussmann, and W. Zwerger, Ann. Phys. 326, 770 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    Hanai and Y

    R. Hanai and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043622 (2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    Kagamihara, D

    D. Kagamihara, D. Inotani, and Y. Ohashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 114001 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Nozi` eres and S

    P. Nozi` eres and S. Schmitt-Rink, J. Low Temp. Phys. 59, 195 (1985)

    1985

  47. [47]

    Ohashi and A

    Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. A 67, 063612 (2003)

    2003

  48. [48]

    C. A. R. S´ a de Melo, M. Randeria, and J. R. Engelbrecht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3202 (1993)

    1993

  49. [49]

    Liu and H

    X.-J. Liu and H. Hu, Europhys. Lett. 75, 364 (2006)

    2006

  50. [50]

    Iwasaki, T

    S. Iwasaki, T. Kawamura, K. Manabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063309 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Pieri, L

    P. Pieri, L. Pisani, and G. C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. B 70, 094508 (2004)

    2004

  52. [53]

    Chen and K

    Q. Chen and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190402 (2009)

    2009

  53. [54]

    Hu, X.-J

    H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, P. D. Drummond, and H. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240407 (2010)

    2010

  54. [55]

    Tsuchiya, R

    S. Tsuchiya, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043647 (2011)

    2011

  55. [56]

    Palestini, A

    F. Palestini, A. Perali, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Ph ys. Rev. B 85, 024517 (2012)

    2012

  56. [57]

    E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A 83, 053623 (2011)

    2011

  57. [58]

    Watanabe, S

    R. Watanabe, S. Tsuchiya, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 88, 013637 (2013)

    2013

  58. [59]

    Palestini, P

    F. Palestini, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 108, 080401 (2012)

    2012

  59. [60]

    R. L. Compton, Y.-J. Lin, K. Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. A 86, 063601 (2012)

    2012

  60. [61]

    Hanai, T

    R. Hanai, T. Kashimura, R. Watanabe, D. Inotani, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 88, 053621 (2013)

    2013

  61. [62]

    Tajima, T

    H. Tajima, T. Kashimura, R. Hanai, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 89, 033617 (2014)

    2014

  62. [63]

    M. Pini, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094502 (2019)

    2019

  63. [64]

    Kashimura, R

    T. Kashimura, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043622 (2012)

    2012

  64. [65]

    Kashimura, R

    T. Kashimura, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 89, 013618 (2014)

    2014

  65. [66]

    Watanabe, S

    R. Watanabe, S. Tsuchiya, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043630 (2010)

    2010

  66. [67]

    D. J. Thouless, Ann. Phys. 10, 553 (1960)

    1960

  67. [68]

    H. J. Vidberg and J. W. Serene, J. Low Temp. Phys. 29, 179 (1977)

    1977

  68. [69]

    Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, and K. Levin, Phys. Rep. 412, 1 (2005)

    2005

  69. [70]

    Perali, P

    A. Perali, P. Pieri, G. C. Strinati, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. B 66, 024510 (2002)

    2002

  70. [71]

    Tsuchiya, R

    S. Tsuchiya, R. Watanabe, and Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033613 (2009)

    2009

  71. [72]

    Iskin and C

    M. Iskin and C. A. R. S. de Melo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 165301 (2009)

    2009

  72. [73]

    Ohashi and S

    Y. Ohashi and S. Takada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 66, 2437 (1997)

    1997

  73. [74]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 115, 2 (1959)

    1959

  74. [75]

    Micnas, J

    R. Micnas, J. Ranninger, and S. Robaszkiewicz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 113 (1990)

    1990