Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

In a half-space Fermi superfluid, the local pairing amplitude rises from zero at the hard wall and shows Friedel oscillations at wavevector 2k_F that are suppressed as coupling moves from the BCS to the BEC regime.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

In a semi-infinite superfluid, the local pairing amplitude rises from zero at a hard wall with 2k_F Friedel oscillations in the BCS regime that are progressively washed out toward the BEC regime.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Careful, honest extension of BCS boundary theory to the crossover; the no-surface-state claim is numerically supported but not proven, and the below-T_c analysis is a GL model rather than full BdG. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29620 v1 pith:EGMTNY2R submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.quant-gas

Pairing near the boundary of a box-shaped trap in the BEC-BCS crossover

Kelly R. Patton , Daniel E. Sheehy This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords BEC-BCS crossoverlocal pairing amplitudehard-wall boundaryFriedel oscillationssurface superconductivitybox trappairing kernelrenormalization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how superfluidity is modified by a hard boundary, as encountered in box-shaped traps for ultracold Fermi gases or at the edge of a superconductor. Treating a semi-infinite system with a wall at x=0, the authors show that the local pairing amplitude is not uniform up to the wall: it drops to zero at the boundary and, in the weak-coupling BCS regime, displays Friedel-like oscillations at wavevector 2k_F. As the interaction is strengthened toward the BEC side of the crossover, these oscillations are suppressed and the pairing rises smoothly to its bulk value. The authors further argue that the edge profile is universal, independent of the ultraviolet cutoff, and that there is no surface-bound-state pairing instability in three dimensions with contact interactions.

Core claim

The authors solve the linearized BCS gap equation for a semi-infinite superfluid with a hard-wall boundary, treating the pairing instability as an eigenvalue problem for an integral kernel K_Lambda. They find that the kernel's generalized eigenfunctions form a continuum labeled by wavevector q, with eigenvalues equal to the bulk values; the off-diagonal part that enforces the boundary condition does not alter the essential spectrum, and no bound states (which would signal surface superconductivity) appear numerically. These eigenfunctions are cutoff-independent, so the kernel can be renormalized by the same Lippmann-Schwinger procedure used for the bulk. Below T_c, adding a Ginzburg-Landau n

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairing kernel K_Lambda(x,x') for the linearized T_c gap equation in the half-slab geometry, expressed in a cosine basis as a singular diagonal piece plus a compact off-diagonal piece that imposes the hard-wall condition. Its continuum eigenfunctions, normalized with a residue R(q) that emerges from principal-value products, are universal (cutoff-independent) even though the eigenvalues are not; the Lippmann-Schwinger renormalization replaces the eigenvalues by E_R(q) while leaving the eigenfunctions untouched. This basis then carries the expansion of the nonlinear pairing problem below T_c.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the unproven completeness of the continuum eigenfunctions of the pairing kernel: the authors state they have not directly proven completeness and find no numerical evidence for bound states, but if a square-normalizable bound state existed below the continuum, the edge pairing could acquire a localized surface component.

What would settle it

A direct numerical search for square-normalizable eigenfunctions of the pairing kernel with eigenvalues below the continuum bottom E_Lambda(0), using a fine grid and a large box, would settle the surface-state question; the authors' numerics find none. Experimentally, measuring the local pairing profile near the wall of a box-trapped Fermi gas across the crossover—e.g., via momentum-resolved photoemission or rf spectroscopy—would reveal the 2k_F oscillations in the BCS regime and their absence at unitarity.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the weak-coupling BCS regime, the local pairing amplitude near a hard wall follows approximately Δ(x) = Δ_bulk[1 − sin(2k_F x)/(2k_F x)], with oscillations at wavevector 2k_F and a rise on a length scale ~(2k_F)^{-1}.
  • As coupling increases toward the BEC regime, Friedel oscillations are suppressed and the edge profile approaches the smooth Ginzburg-Landau solution, with a quadratic rise near the wall rather than a linear one.
  • The edge pairing profile is universal: after renormalization it is independent of the ultraviolet cutoff.
  • No surface-bound-state pairing instability (surface superconductivity) exists for 3D contact-interaction superfluids; the half-slab transition temperature equals the bulk T_c.
  • The same kernel-eigenfunction approach can be extended to a self-consistent Bogoliubov-de Gennes treatment below T_c or to a finite box geometry, where the box T_c may differ from the bulk T_c.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted 2k_F oscillations are real, they should be visible in a box-trapped Fermi gas as a spatial modulation of the pairing gap near the walls, measurable with local probes such as momentum-resolved photoemission or rf spectroscopy.
  • The contrast between 1D models (which show surface bound states) and 2D/3D contact-interaction models (which do not) suggests a dimensionality threshold: surface pairing enhancement may require quasi-1D confinement or a longer-ranged interaction kernel.
  • A rigorous proof or disproof of completeness of the continuum eigenfunctions would settle the surface-state question; the weak bound derived in the paper (E ≥ 2E(0)) does not rule out a bound state below the continuum but above 2E(0).
  • The universal edge profile implies that the boundary of a box trap is a clean place to measure the BEC-BCS crossover parameter, since the shape of Δ(x) near the wall encodes coupling strength in a cutoff-independent way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the local pairing amplitude of attractively interacting fermions in a three-dimensional semi-infinite half-slab with a hard wall, across the BEC-BCS crossover. At T_c, the authors analyze the linearized pairing kernel in a cosine basis, use Weyl's theorem and an analytic ansatz to show that the essential spectrum is the bulk spectrum, and construct numerically the corresponding continuum eigenfunctions. They normalize these eigenfunctions and build a renormalized, cutoff-independent pairing kernel. Below T_c, they add a Ginzburg-Landau-type cubic nonlinearity and solve the resulting equation in the eigenfunction basis. The central claims are that (i) the edge pairing profile rises from zero at the wall with 2k_F Friedel oscillations in the weak-coupling BCS regime, which are suppressed toward the BEC regime, and (ii) within this model there is no surface-bound-state (surface-superconductivity) instability.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction for box-trapped cold-atom experiments and provides an interesting contrast to surface-superconductivity instabilities found in one-dimensional and two-dimensional settings. The linearized T_c analysis is careful: the analytic ansatz and numerical diagonalization agree, the cutoff-independence argument based on convergent differences is convincing, and the numerical methods are documented in enough detail to be reproduced. The strengths of the paper are the explicit regularization procedure and the demonstration that the eigenfunction shapes are universal. However, the no-surface-state conclusion and the below-T_c Friedel-oscillation persistence both rest on an unproven completeness assumption and on a phenomenological nonlinear model, so the significance is conditional on closing those gaps.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V, Eqs. (39)-(40); §VI, Eq. (48); Appendix C] The completeness of the continuum eigenfunctions \barΔ_q is assumed, not established. The authors state in Sec. V that they have not directly proven completeness. Appendix C proves only E ≥ 2EΛ(0); since EΛ(0)<0, the interval [2EΛ(0), EΛ(0)) remains open for a square-normalizable bound state below the continuum. The numerical diagonalization in Appendix D is finite-dimensional and cannot exclude such a state. If a bound state exists, Eq. (39) is false, the spectral representation Eq. (40) is incomplete, and the expansion Eq. (48) misses a localized surface-pairing component. This affects both the 'no surface pairing instability' conclusion and the below-T_c edge profile. Please either prove the required completeness (or a bound excluding bound states) or explicitly reformulate the central results as conditional on the numerically supported absence of bound states.
  2. [§VI, Eq. (43)] The below-T_c equation is a Ginzburg-Landau-inspired cubic with an arbitrary coefficient β, not a self-consistent BdG or microscopic BCS equation. The cancellation of β in Δ(x)/Δ_bulk normalizes the overall scale only; it does not establish that the local cubic model reproduces the correct nonlocal self-consistent pairing. The persistence of 2k_F Friedel oscillations below T_c is therefore demonstrated only within this phenomenological model. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. VII, but the abstract and Fig. 1 present the result more generally. A derivation of the nonlinear term from the microscopic action or a BdG calculation in the half-slab geometry (at least in the BCS regime) is needed to make the main claim fully load-bearing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 and Sec. I text] The blue solid curve in Fig. 1 corresponds to βc μ=5, i.e., k_B T_c/μ≃0.2, but the text says 'blue solid (k_B T_c/μ≃0.1 or k_F a_s≃−1.39)', which duplicates the red dashed value. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Eq. (43) and Appendix D] The nonlinear term is written Δ^3 in Eq. (43), |Δ|^3 in Eq. (D18), and β|Δ|²Δ in Appendix B. Since the order parameter can be complex, use β|Δ|²Δ consistently, or explicitly state the reality/positivity convention.
  3. [Notation] β denotes inverse temperature in the figures (βc μ) and in Appendix D, while it is the GL nonlinear coefficient in Eq. (43) and Appendix B. Rename one of them to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [References] Ref. [38] (the 2D case) is cited as unpublished; please provide a preprint identifier or publication status if available.
  5. [Abstract and Title] The abstract uses 'BEC-BCS crossover' while the title and body use 'BCS-BEC crossover' or 'BEC-BCS crossover' inconsistently; unify the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained, with minor non-load-bearing caveats.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The pairing kernel eigenfunctions are obtained by solving the linearized gap equation (Eq. 17) with the explicit ansatz (Eq. 18), and the resulting eigenfunctions are verified both by direct numerical diagonalization of the discretized kernel and by comparison with the analytically derived Eq. (28); they are not fitted to the final pairing profile. Cutoff independence is established through convergent differences (Eqs. 22-23) following the standard Lippmann-Schwinger renormalization, not by adjusting parameters to reproduce the target result. The below-Tc analysis adds a Ginzburg-Landau nonlinearity (Eq. 43) with an arbitrary coefficient β, but β cancels in the normalized profiles (Eqs. 46, 51), so no fitted parameter is disguised as a prediction. The Friedel oscillations below Tc are not assumed: the authors explicitly note that eigenfunction structure need not survive the nonlinear problem, then demonstrate that it does by solving the nonlinear equation. The remaining caveats are limitations, not circularity. First, completeness of the continuum eigenfunctions is explicitly unproven ('we have not directly proven completeness', Sec. V), and the spectral representations (Eqs. 39, 42) and the below-Tc basis expansion (Eq. 48) rely on it; a hypothetical bound state would invalidate these steps. This is an open mathematical gap, not a circular reduction. Second, the concluding remark about 2D surface states cites an unpublished self-reference (Ref. [38]), but this is not load-bearing for the paper's central 3D result, which is numerically supported in the present work. No definitional equivalence, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forces the main conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard BCS mean-field theory plus two non-derived modeling choices: the GL-like cubic nonlinearity with arbitrary β, and the assumed completeness of continuum eigenfunctions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • β_GL = unspecified/arbitrary (cancels in normalized Δ/Δ_bulk)
    Coefficient of the GL-inspired cubic term in Eq. (43) and Appendix D3. Introduced ad hoc to stabilize the bulk pairing below T_c; the authors state it is 'an arbitrary parameter, kept for dimensional reasons' and it drops out of the normalized profiles.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption BCS mean-field Hamiltonian and gap equation (Eqs. 2 and 4) describe attractively interacting fermions across the BEC-BCS crossover.
    The entire calculation is built on single-channel BCS mean-field theory with a contact interaction.
  • domain assumption Lippmann-Schwinger equation (Eq. 1) relates the bare contact coupling λ to the s-wave scattering length a_s.
    Used to renormalize the UV cutoff in both the uniform and half-slab gap equations.
  • domain assumption The same bulk counterterm renormalizes the edge eigenvalues; no additional boundary counterterms are needed.
    The paper argues the eigenfunctions are cutoff-independent because E(q)-E(Q) and f(Q,q)-f(Q,Q') are convergent, but this is an extension of the bulk renormalization scheme to the inhomogeneous setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The continuum eigenfunctions of the pairing kernel are complete; no discrete bound states exist.
    Explicitly unproven: Sec. V states 'we have not directly proven completeness' and only numerical evidence is given. Appendix C proves only a weaker bound 2E(0) ≤ E_bound ≤ E(0). The below-T_c numerical expansion assumes completeness.
  • ad hoc to paper Below T_c the pairing dynamics is governed by Eq. (43) with a cubic GL nonlinearity β|Δ|^3.
    This is not derived from the microscopic BCS/BdG equations; it is introduced in Sec. VI as 'GL-inspired' with an arbitrary coefficient, and used to compute the central edge-pairing profiles.
  • domain assumption Hard-wall Dirichlet boundary condition Δ(0)=0 for the half-slab.
    Models the box-trap edge and superconductor-insulator interface; stated in Sec. III and used throughout.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pairing near the boundary of a box-shaped trap in the BEC-BCS crossover." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGMTNY2R

@misc{pith2026260729620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pairing near the boundary of a box-shaped trap in the BEC-BCS crossover},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGMTNY2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29620}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study pairing of attractively interacting fermions confined to a box-shaped trap. In contrast to the infinite translationally-invariant case, where the local pairing order is spatially uniform and undergoes the Bose-Einstein Condensate to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BEC-BCS) crossover as interactions are varied, in this case the local pairing is expected to vary rapidly near the edge of the box. We address this problem in the limit of a semi-infinite superfluid, finding that the nature of the edge pairing depends sensitively on the coupling. The local pairing exhibits Friedel-like oscillations in the weak coupling BCS regime that are suppressed with increasing coupling strength towards the BEC regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29620 by Daniel E. Sheehy, Kelly R. Patton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online) Plot of the local pairing amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) Shown here are representative eigenstates of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Shown here is a comparison of the kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Shown here are representative eigenfunctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) The dashed red line shows the spatial profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The three curves illustrate the temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Shown here is the evolution, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (Color online) The solid line shows the local pairing in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (Color online) The numerically obtained coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗

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

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This should be chosen to be much larger than all other length scales,e.g.,theFermiwavelengthandthecoherencelength

    Discrete cosine transform Let𝐿 be the effective finite system size cutoff in real space. This should be chosen to be much larger than all other length scales,e.g.,theFermiwavelengthandthecoherencelength. Let 𝑁 be the number of discrete sample points in both the physical space and momentum space. The grid size in real space is then defined asΔ𝑥=𝐿/(𝑁−1) and...

  2. [2]

    Wecanturn thisintoaHermitianmatrixeigenvalueproblembyintroducing an auxiliary function𝑢(𝑘) , which is related to the pairing functionvia Δ(𝑘𝑚)=𝑢(𝑘 𝑚)/ √︁ 𝑤𝑘𝑚

    At𝑇 c At𝑇c, the gap equation is an integral eigenvalue problem given in𝑘-space as (Again, note we have slightly different𝜋 conventions relative to the main text) 1 𝜆Δ(𝑘)= ∞∫ 0 d𝑘′KΛ(𝑘,𝑘 ′)Δ(𝑘′),(D9) where KΛ(𝑘,𝑘 ′)=E Λ(𝑘)𝛿(𝑘−𝑘 ′)− 1 2𝜋 𝑓Λ 𝑘,𝑘′.(D10) UsingthedefinitionsoftheDCTfromSec.D1oftheAppendix the discretized𝑇c-equation becomes 1 𝜆Δ(𝑘𝑛)= 𝑁−1∑︁ 𝑚=0 K...

  3. [3]

    Below𝑇 c To analyze the regime of𝑇 <𝑇c, we extend the linear𝑇c- equation by adding a Ginzburg-Landau-like (GL) nonlinear term to stabilize the bulk pairing far away from the boundary. Thusweseektosolvethefollowingnonlinearintegralequation Δ(𝑥)=𝑔 Λ c ∞∫ 0 d𝑥′KΛ(𝑥,𝑥′)Δ(𝑥′)+𝑔 c𝛽GL|Δ(𝑥)| 3,(D18) where 1/𝑔Λ c =E Λ(𝑞 0) isthecutoff-dependentcriticalcoupling at𝑇...

  4. [4]

    Boundary Effects in Superconductors

    P. G. de Gennes, “Boundary Effects in Superconductors”, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 225 (1964)

    1964

  5. [5]

    Order parameter near a superconductor-insulator interface

    B. P. Stojković and O. T. Valls, “Order parameter near a superconductor-insulator interface", Phys. Rev. B47, 5922 (1993)

    1993

  6. [6]

    Size effects and characteristic lengths in superconducting films and interfaces

    B. P. Stojković and O. T. Valls, “Size effects and characteristic lengths in superconducting films and interfaces", Phys. Rev. B 49, 3413 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    Shape resonances in supercon- ducting thin films

    J.M. Blatt and C.J. Thompson, “Shape resonances in supercon- ducting thin films”, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 332 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer Theory of Finite-Size Superconducting Metallic Grains

    A. M. Garcia-Garcia, J. D. Urbina, Emil A. Yuzbashyan, Klaus Richter, and Boris L. Altshuler, “Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer Theory of Finite-Size Superconducting Metallic Grains” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 187001 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    BCS supercon- ductivity near the band edge: Exact results for one and several bands

    D. Valentinis, D. van der Marel and C. Berthod, “BCS supercon- ductivity near the band edge: Exact results for one and several bands”, Phys. Rev. B94, 024511 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Riseandfallof shape resonances in thin films of BCS superconductors

    D.Valentinis,D.vanderMarelandC.Berthod,“Riseandfallof shape resonances in thin films of BCS superconductors”, Phys. Rev. B94054516 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Periodicity of superconducting shaperesonancesinthinfilms

    D. Valentinis and C. Berthod, “Periodicity of superconducting shaperesonancesinthinfilms”Phys.Rev.B102,054518(2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Boundary superconduc- tivity in the BCS Model

    C. Hainzl, B. Roos, and R. Seiringer, “Boundary superconduc- tivity in the BCS Model”, J. Spectr. Theory121507 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    BCS Critical Temperature on Half- Spaces

    B. Roos and R. Seiringer, “BCS Critical Temperature on Half- Spaces”, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.24920 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Andreev bound states and their signatures

    J.A. Sauls, “Andreev bound states and their signatures”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376:20180140 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Onset of surface superconductivity

    T. Giamarchi, M.T. Béal-Monod, and O.T. Valls, “Onset of surface superconductivity”, Phys. Rev. B41, 11033 (1990)

    1990

  16. [16]

    Self-consistent microscopic theory of surface superconductivity

    R. J. Troy and A. T. Dorsey, “Self-consistent microscopic theory of surface superconductivity”, Phys. Rev. B51, 11728 (1995)

    1995

  17. [17]

    Boundary states with elevated criticaltemperaturesinBardeen-Cooper-Schrieffersuperconduc- tors

    A. Samoilenka and E. Babaev, “Boundary states with elevated criticaltemperaturesinBardeen-Cooper-Schrieffersuperconduc- tors”, Phys. Rev. B101, 134512 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Microscopic description of surface superconductivity

    M.D.Croitoru,A.A.Shanenko,Y.Chen,A.Vagov,andJ.Albino Aguiar, “Microscopic description of surface superconductivity”, Phys. Rev. B102, 054513 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Surface Pair- Density-Wave Superconducting and Superfluid States

    M. Barkman, A. Samoilenka, and E. Babaev, “Surface Pair- Density-Wave Superconducting and Superfluid States”, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 165302 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Bose-EinsteinCondensationofAtomsinaUniform Potential

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic,“Bose-EinsteinCondensationofAtomsinaUniform Potential”, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 200406 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    Homogeneous Atomic Fermi Gases

    B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yefsah, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, “Homogeneous Atomic Fermi Gases”, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 123401 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Quasiparticle Energy in a Strongly Interacting Homogeneous Bose-Einstein Condensate

    R. Lopes, C. Eigen, A. Barker, K. G. H. Viebahn, M. Robert- de-Saint-Vincent, N. Navon, Z. Hadzibabic, and R. P. Smith, “Quasiparticle Energy in a Strongly Interacting Homogeneous Bose-Einstein Condensate” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 210401 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Universal Scaling Laws in the Dynamics of a Homogeneous Unitary Bose Gas

    C. Eigen, J. A. P. Glidden, R. Lopes, N. Navon, Z. Hadzibabic, R. P. Smith, “Universal Scaling Laws in the Dynamics of a Homogeneous Unitary Bose Gas” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 250404 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Two-Dimensional Homogeneous Fermi Gases

    K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, J. Siegl, T. Lompe, and H. Moritz, “Two-Dimensional Homogeneous Fermi Gases”, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 060402 (2018). 16

    2018

  25. [25]

    From single-particle excitations to sound waves in a box-trapped atomic BEC

    S.J.Garratt,C.Eigen,J.Zhang,P.Turzák,R.Lopes,R.P.Smith, Z. Hadzibabic, and N. Navon, “From single-particle excitations to sound waves in a box-trapped atomic BEC”, Phys. Rev. A99, 021601 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Elliptic flow in a strongly-interacting normal Bose gas

    R. J. Fletcher, J. Man, R. Lopes, P. Christodoulou, J. Schmitt, M. Sohmen, N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Elliptic flow in a strongly-interacting normal Bose gas”, Phys. Rev. A98, 011601 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Boiling a Unitary Fermi Liquid

    Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, B. Mukherjee, R. J. Fletcher, J. Struck, and Martin W. Zwierlein, “Boiling a Unitary Fermi Liquid”, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 093401 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Measuring the Hydrodynamic Linear Response of a Unitary Fermi Gas

    L. Baird, X. Wang, S. Roof and J. E. Thomas, “Measuring the Hydrodynamic Linear Response of a Unitary Fermi Gas”, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 160402 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Universal Sound Diffusion in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas

    P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, B. Mukherjee, R. J. Fletcher, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, “Universal Sound Diffusion in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas”, Science370, 1222 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Quantum gases in optical boxes

    N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Quantum gases in optical boxes”, Nature Physics17, 1334 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Resonantly paired fermionic superfluids

    V. Gurarie and L. Radzihovsky, “Resonantly paired fermionic superfluids”, Annals of Physics322, 2 (2007)

    2007

  32. [32]

    BCS theory for trapped ultracold fermions

    G. Bruun,Y. Castin, R. Dum, and K. Burnett, “BCS theory for trapped ultracold fermions", Eur. Phys. J. D7, 433 (1998)

    1998

  33. [33]

    Renormalization of the Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov Equations in the Case of a Zero Range Pairing Interaction

    A. Bulgac and Y. Yu, “Renormalization of the Hartree-Fock- Bogoliubov Equations in the Case of a Zero Range Pairing Interaction", Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 042504 (2002)

    2002

  34. [34]

    Microscopic derivation of the Ginzburg-Landau Equations in the theory of superconductivity

    L.P. Gorkov, “Microscopic derivation of the Ginzburg-Landau Equations in the theory of superconductivity”, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.36, 1918-1923 (1959) Sov. Phys. JETP36, 1364 (1959)

    1918

  35. [35]

    Correctionstolocal-density approximation for superfluid trapped fermionic atoms from the Wigner-Kirkwoodℏ expansion

    P.Schuck,M.Urban,andX.Viñas,“Correctionstolocal-density approximation for superfluid trapped fermionic atoms from the Wigner-Kirkwoodℏ expansion", Eur. Phys. J. A59, 164 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Equation for the superfluid gap obtained by coarse graining the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations throughout the BCS-BEC crossover

    S. Simonucci and G. C. Strinati, “Equation for the superfluid gap obtained by coarse graining the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations throughout the BCS-BEC crossover”, Phys. Rev. B89, 054511 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    Nonlocal equation for the superconductinggapparameter

    S. Simonucci and G. C. Strinati, “Nonlocal equation for the superconductinggapparameter”,Phys.Rev.B96,054502(2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    Über gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Sin- gularitäten und die zugehörigen Entwicklungen willkürlicher Funktionen

    H. Weyl, “Über gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Sin- gularitäten und die zugehörigen Entwicklungen willkürlicher Funktionen” Mathematische Annalen68, 220 (1909)

    1909

  39. [39]

    Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis

    M. Reed and B. Simon, “Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis” (Academic Press, New York, 1980)

    1980

  40. [40]

    Superconductivity Near a Quantum Critical Point: Bounds on the Transition Temperature in the 𝛾-Model

    A. Elezaby and A. Abanov, “Superconductivity Near a Quantum Critical Point: Bounds on the Transition Temperature in the 𝛾-Model” arXiv:2512.20009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Patton and D.E

    K.R. Patton and D.E. Sheehy, Unpublished

  42. [42]

    Finite total three-particle scattering rates

    R. G. Newton and R. Shtokhamer, “Finite total three-particle scattering rates”, Phys. Rev. A14, 642 (1976)

    1976

  43. [43]

    Dispersion relations for causal Green’s functions: Derivations using the Poincaré-Bertrand theorem and its generalizations

    K. T. R. Davies, R. W. Davies, and G. D. White, “Dispersion relations for causal Green’s functions: Derivations using the Poincaré-Bertrand theorem and its generalizations”, J. Math. Phys.31, 1356 (1990)

    1990

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.