Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Structures and proximity effects of inhomogeneous population-imbalanced Fermi gases with pairing interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inhomogeneous pairing or polarization in a quasi-1D Fermi gas stabilizes coexisting BCS, FFLO, and normal phases, with finite-momentum FFLO correlations leaking across interfaces and a buffer FFLO phase forming between BCS and normal region

desk verdict A careful BdG study of 1D imbalanced Fermi gases with spatial parameter steps; the new proximity features are plausible but need a beyond-mean-field check before betting on them. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.03788 v1 pith:3DLUEVLA submitted 2026-02-03 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Bishal Parajuli , Devin J. Gagnon , Chih-Chun Chien This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords inhomogeneousFermigaspopulationimbalanceFFLOphaseproximityeffectBogoliubov-deGennessuperfluidphasescoldatomsboxpotential
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 asks what happens when a quasi-1D attractive Fermi gas is forced to host different phases side by side, by making the pairing strength or the spin polarization vary in space. Using self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes theory, it shows that FFLO pairing correlations, characterized by a finite center-of-mass momentum, do not stop at an interface but penetrate into adjacent normal or BCS regions. When a BCS superfluid is joined to a polarized normal gas, a buffer FFLO phase appears in between, even though no bulk FFLO phase would exist in either uniform region. These predictions give concrete momentum-space signatures—peaks at the FFLO momentum in the pair-correlation spectrum—that could be seen in cold-atom experiments with box potentials.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) formalism for a two-component Fermi gas with spin-dependent chemical potentials and a spatially varying order parameter Δ(x). The key object is the pair correlation function F(x) = ⟨ψ↓(x)ψ↑(x)⟩, which can be nonzero even where the local pairing interaction vanishes, and its discrete Fourier transform identifies the momentum content of pairing. The load-bearing scales are the FFLO momentum q = kF↑ − kF↓ (from the mismatch of spin-resolved Fermi wavevectors) and the BCS coherence length ξ_BCS ≈ ℏ²kF/(mΔ), whose product ξ_BCS q controls whether finite-momentum correlations can penetrate an interface. The iterative solution of the B

What would settle it

Compute the momentum-resolved pair correlation on the normal side of a BCS–normal junction with a small spin imbalance using a numerically exact method (e.g., density-matrix renormalization group for the same box potential); the paper's central claim predicts a clear peak at q = kF↑ − kF↓ in that region. Absence of such a peak would indicate that the mean-field proximity effect and buffer FFLO phase are artifacts of the approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spatially varying pairing interaction or spin polarization in a quasi-1D population-imbalanced Fermi gas produces stable real-space coexistence of BCS, FFLO, and normal phases, with the FFLO pair correlations penetrating neighboring regions at the characteristic momentum q = kF↑ − kF↓. In the FFLO–normal interface, the pair correlation leaks into the noninteracting side while retaining its oscillatory structure and a spectral peak at q. In the FFLO–BCS interface, the order parameter transitions smoothly from oscillations to a plateau, and the BCS side stays essentially unpolarized. Most strikingly, when a BCS phase is directly joined to a polarized normal phase, the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that BdG mean-field theory with a local order parameter Δ(x) faithfully captures ground-state pairing correlations across interfaces in a quasi-1D Fermi gas, despite the fact that one-dimensional systems have no true long-range order and are strongly affected by fluctuations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an FFLO–normal junction, the pair correlation penetrates the normal region and displays a Fourier peak at the FFLO momentum q, giving a clear finite-momentum proximity signature absent in equal-population systems.
  • In an FFLO–BCS junction, the BCS side remains essentially featureless at finite momentum; the penetration of FFLO correlations is suppressed when ξ_BCS q is appreciably less than 1.
  • Joining a BCS superfluid to a polarized normal gas under a small but uniform spin-polarization field produces a buffer FFLO phase at the interface, so the final structure is BCS–FFLO–normal.
  • The spatial profiles are qualitatively robust when the step-like parameter changes are replaced by gradual ramps, as long as the transition width stays below ξ_BCS or 1/q.
  • The BCS phase resists population imbalance in its bulk, maintaining a flat order parameter and balanced spin densities, while FFLO and normal regions accommodate the imbalance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The appearance of a buffer phase at an interface between two phases that are not adjacent on the uniform phase diagram may be a general principle: when a continuous order-parameter field cannot connect two regions without a sign change or large gradient, a third phase with intermediate momentum structure emerges to soften the mismatch.
  • Momentum-resolved radio-frequency spectroscopy on the normal side of such a junction could directly test the predicted finite-momentum peak in |F(k)|, which would be a sharper experimental signature than density profiles or the real-space oscillatory tail.
  • In strictly one-dimensional systems, true long-range order is absent and Luttinger-liquid corrections may replace the mean-field buffer region with a crossover of enhanced FFLO-type correlations; a numerically exact calculation for the same box setup would clarify whether the buffer remains a distinct phase.
  • The same inhomogeneous-BdG approach could be transferred to two-dimensional geometries or to Bose–Fermi mixtures, where interface-induced finite-momentum pairing might appear even when the uniform phase diagram has no such phase.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies quasi-one-dimensional two-component Fermi gases with population imbalance confined in box potentials, using self-consistent Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) theory. It first maps the homogeneous phase diagram of the BCS, FFLO, and normal phases, then constructs four inhomogeneous configurations by step-like spatial profiles of either the pairing strength or the spin-polarization field: FFLO–normal (case a), FFLO–BCS by a spin-field step (case b), FFLO–BCS by a pairing-strength step (case c), and BCS–normal (case d). The central claims are that FFLO pair correlations penetrate into adjacent normal regions while retaining the finite-momentum signature q = k_F↑ − k_F↓; that BCS regions expel population imbalance and maintain a pairing plateau; and that a 'buffer FFLO phase' emerges when a BCS phase is joined to a polarized normal phase. The appendix provides an internal consistency check between the real-space FFLO modulation and the density-derived q (q_real ≈ 0.238 vs q_theory ≈ 0.234) and documents hard-wall boundary effects.

Significance. If the results are viewed as BdG mean-field predictions, the paper is a useful extension of superconducting proximity studies to spin-imbalanced quasi-1D atomic Fermi gases. The self-consistent calculations are carefully executed: the authors quote a convergence tolerance of 1e-5, check grid-size sensitivity, and verify robustness against smooth interface profiles. The momentum-space signature of finite-momentum pairing leaking into a normal region is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that could be probed by momentum-resolved spectroscopy. However, the significance is limited by the mean-field nature of the calculation in exactly the regime where 1D quantum fluctuations are known to be strong; the authors acknowledge this in Sec. IV but do not quantify it. No code or data is shipped, which reduces verifiability, though the numerical setup is described in sufficient detail for replication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III.D] The phrase 'buffer FFLO phase' overstates what is computed. In the normal region of Fig. 5 the pairing interaction is set to zero, so the local order parameter Δ(x) vanishes identically by the self-consistency condition Δ = -gF. The finite-momentum peak in F(x) on the normal side is a proximity-induced pair correlation, not a thermodynamic FFLO phase. The text in Sec. III.D itself uses the more careful wording 'buffer zone supporting the FFLO behavior,' but the abstract and conclusion retain 'buffer FFLO phase.' This distinction matters because the paper's headline claim is about a new phase; revise the terminology throughout, or provide a clear operational definition of 'phase' that applies when Δ=0.
  2. [Sec. IV] The central claims are ground-state structures in 1D, where exact solutions (Gaudin–Yang), Luttinger-liquid theory, and DMRG/QMC studies show only power-law correlations and no genuine long-range order. The manuscript acknowledges this in Sec. IV but does not provide any beyond-mean-field benchmark. In particular, the 'buffer FFLO' region and the FFLO-momentum proximity peak could be BdG artifacts caused by the mean-field suppression of phase fluctuations. Because these are the paper's main new results, the authors should either (i) add a DMRG/MPS calculation for at least the BCS–normal case of Fig. 5, or (ii) explicitly and consistently frame the paper as a mean-field study and discuss, with estimates, how Luttinger-liquid fluctuations are expected to modify the proximity length and the spectral peak. As written, the load-bearing claim is left unsupported outside the mean-field approxim
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C] The 'bulk' Fourier transform is not precisely defined. Please specify the spatial intervals over which F(x) is windowed for each half of the box, since the finite decay length in the normal region could affect the peak shape and position.
  2. [Sec. II.C and Appendix A] The FFLO momentum q is defined from the computed densities via k_Fσ = πρσ. Observing the Fourier peak at this q is therefore partly a self-consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The text should state this explicitly, for example by noting that q_theory is evaluated from the self-consistent density profiles rather than from input parameters.
  3. [Fig. 1] The dashed phase boundary labeled 'best estimations' is vague. Please specify the criterion used to assign the BCS/FFLO/normal regions in the low-g, low-h corner, or remove the dashed line if it is only a guide.
  4. [Sec. II.A] The model is strictly one-dimensional, while the abstract and introduction refer to 'quasi-one-dimensional' gases. Clarify whether transverse confinement is assumed to freeze out only the transverse modes, or whether the BdG calculation includes any transverse width.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BdG outputs are self-consistent; the q-peak comparison is a check, not a fit, and the sole self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claims are outputs of a numerical self-consistency loop (BdG equations plus the gap equation, Sec. IIB), not fits to a target result. The only point where a diagnostic momentum is defined from the same solution is q = k_F↑ − k_F↓ with k_Fσ = πρσ (Secs. IIC–D). The subsequent identification of an FFT peak of F(x) at q is a comparison between two independent outputs of the same BdG solution; the peak location is not imposed by construction. Appendix A explicitly reports q_real ≃ 0.238 vs q_theory ≃ 0.234, i.e., a small residual difference, demonstrating that the peak is not equal to the input by construction. Ref. [49] is a self-citation, but it is used only as an equal-population baseline/contrast; none of the population-imbalanced proximity or buffer-FFLO conclusions reduce to it. The acknowledged 1D mean-field limitation (Sec. IV) is a validity caveat, not a circularity. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation; otherwise the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The 'buffer FFLO phase' is an emergent spatial region within a mean-field calculation, not a new fundamental entity. The model inputs are standard BdG parameters chosen by hand, and the only real free parameters are the spatial profiles of g and h, the chemical potential, and the numerical grid. The main epistemic burden is the mean-field approximation itself.

free parameters (5)
  • μ̃ (dimensionless chemical potential) = 1
    Fixed uniformly; locates the gas in the intermediate-coupling regime. The paper notes slight changes of μ̃ shift densities but not qualitative features.
  • g̃ values in step profiles = 2 (FFLO side), 4 or 5 (BCS side), 0 (normal side)
    Chosen by hand to realize the target phases on the uniform phase diagram (cases a–d in Fig. 1). They are model inputs, not fitted to reproduce the proximity claims.
  • h̃ values in step profiles = 0.15, 0.24, 0.35; 0 on BCS side in case (b)
    Chosen to access BCS, FFLO, and normal phases in the intermediate-polarization regime. The high-polarization regime is explicitly left for future work.
  • Box size and spatial grid = N_x = 300
    Results are shown for 300 grid points; the paper says increasing N_x does not qualitatively change conclusions, but no systematic grid-convergence error bars are reported.
  • Interface profile width = Step function at midpoint; gradual ramps tested qualitatively
    Central results use abrupt spatial jumps. The authors state gradual ramps give the same qualitative features if the ramp width is below the coherence length or inverse FFLO momentum, but no quantitative criterion is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BdG mean-field Hamiltonian with local order parameter Δ(x) = -g⟨ψ↓ψ↑⟩ describes the ground state of the quasi-1D attractive Fermi gas.
    Introduced in Sec. II A; the entire numerical study rests on this mean-field treatment, which is not quantitatively justified in 1D where correlations are power-law.
  • domain assumption Self-consistent iteration of the BdG equations converges to the relevant ground state.
    Sec. II B describes the iterative scheme and tolerance ϵ<1e-5; no uniqueness or global-minimum check is provided.
  • domain assumption Mean-field phase labels (BCS, FFLO, normal) can be assigned to regions in a 1D system despite the absence of true long-range order.
    Used throughout Sec. III; the paper acknowledges exact 1D solutions and Luttinger-liquid behavior in Sec. IV but does not use them to validate the mean-field phase assignment.
  • standard math The dominant FFLO modulation wavevector is q = k_F↑ - k_F↓, with k_Fσ = πρσ from the bulk density.
    Sec. II D, Eq. (18), and Appendix A; this is the standard FFLO momentum from mismatched Fermi surfaces, but here k_Fσ are extracted from the computed density profiles.
  • domain assumption Fourier transforms of the bulk pair correlation function F(x) correctly separate phase-specific pairing signatures.
    Sec. II C and results in Sec. III; the Fourier analysis is performed after discarding boundary transients, with a periodic-boundary check claimed but not shown.
  • domain assumption Hard-wall boundary effects do not alter the bulk conclusions.
    Appendix B discusses boundary oscillations; the paper states periodic-boundary simulations give the same bulk results, but those simulations are not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structures and proximity effects of inhomogeneous population-imbalanced Fermi gases with pairing interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DLUEVLA

@misc{pith2026260203788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structures and proximity effects of inhomogeneous population-imbalanced Fermi gases with pairing interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DLUEVLA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.03788}
}
read the original abstract

By introducing spatially varying profiles of pairing interaction or spin polarization to quasi one-dimensional two-component atomic Fermi gases confined in box potentials, we analyze the ground state structures and properties when multiple phases coexist in real space by implementing the Bogoliubov--de~Gennes equation suitable for describing inhomogeneous fermion systems. While the BCS, Fulde--Ferrell--Larkin--Ovchinnikov (FFLO), and normal phases occupy different regions on the phase diagram when the parameters are uniform, a spatial change of pairing strength or spin polarization can drive the system from the FFLO phase to a normal gas or from a BCS superfluid to the FFLO phase in real space. The FFLO phase exhibits its signature modulating order parameter at the FFLO momentum due to population imbalance, and the pair correlation penetrates the polarized normal phase and exhibits proximity effects. Meanwhile, the BCS phase tends to repel population imbalance and maintain a plateau of pairing. Interestingly, a buffer FFLO phase emerges when the spatial change attempts to join the BCS and normal phase in the presence of spin polarization. By analyzing the pairing correlations, interfacial properties, and momentum-space spectra of the inhomogeneous structures, relevant length- and momentum- scales and their interplay are characterized. We also briefly discuss implications of inhomogeneous multi-phase atomic Fermi gases with population imbalance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.03788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase diagram of two-component Fermi gases in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Joint FFLO–normal configuration generated by an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Joint FFLO–BCS configuration generated by an in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Joint FFLO–BCS configuration by an inhomogeneous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Joint BCS-normal configuration generated by an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. FFLO phase in a 1D box induced by uniform polar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Pairing field ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    For such a case, Figure 3(a) shows that the or- der parameter ∆(x) exhibits modulations on the FFLO side but remains uniform in the BCS region

    Inhomogeneity by ˜h We first introduce a spatially varying spin polariza- tion field ˜h(x), such that the left (right) half supports the FFLO (BCS) phase with a fixed uniform pairing strength. For such a case, Figure 3(a) shows that the or- der parameter ∆(x) exhibits modulations on the FFLO side but remains uniform in the BCS region. In the case shown in...

  2. [2]

    Inhomogeneity by˜g Another way to join the FFLO and BCS phases in real space is to introduce a spatially varying profile of the pairing strength ˜g(x) while holding the spin polarization field ˜hfixed. For a selected case with ˜g(x) = 2 on the left half (FFLO side) and ˜g(x) = 4 on the right half (BCS side) with a constant ˜h= 0.35, the setup probes how p...

  3. [3]

    R. D. Parks, ed.,Superconductivity, Vol. 2 (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969)

    1969

  4. [4]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (Dover publications, Garden City, NY, 2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a strong spin-exchange field, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Inhomogeneous state of superconductors, Soviet Physics–JETP20, 762 (1965)

    1965

  7. [7]

    C.-w. Cho, T. T. Lortz, K. T. Lo, C. Y. Ng, S. H. Chui, A. R. Allan, M. Abdel-Hafiez, J. Park, B. Cho, K. Park, 11 N. F. Q. Yuan, and R. Lortz, Evidence for orbital Fulde– Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state in the bulk limit of 2H- NbSe2, Nature Communications16, 7599 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    J. Lin, Z. Wang, H. Yan, X. Ma, Z. Cui, Y. Zhang, Y. Lei, J. Liu, R. Li, C. Xi, Z. Zhu, H. Zuo, Y. Liu, H. Yang, T.-L. Xia, H. Liu, Y. Liu, and J. Wang, Exceed- ingly large in-plane critical field of finite-momentum pair- ing state in bulk superlattices (2025), arXiv:2506.16039 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Kinnunen, J. E. Baarsma, J.-P. Martikainen, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, The Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state for ultracold fermions in lattice and harmonic potentials: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 046401 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    K. Seo, C. Zhang, and S. Tewari, Topological uniform su- perfluid and Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov phases in three-dimensional to one-dimensional crossover of spin- orbit-coupled Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A88, 063601 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Zheng, M

    Z. Zheng, M. Gong, Y. Zhang, X. Zou, C. Zhang, and G. Guo, FFLO superfluids in 2D spin-orbit coupled Fermi gases, Scientific Reports4, 6535 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Sun, R.-P

    Z.-T. Sun, R.-P. Yu, S. A. Chen, J.-X. Hu, and K. T. Law, Flat-band Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov state from quantum geometric discrepancy, Quantum Frontiers 4, 20 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose–Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Ueda,Fundamentals and New Frontiers of Bose– Einstein Condensation(World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

    M. Ueda,Fundamentals and New Frontiers of Bose– Einstein Condensation(World Scientific, Singapore, 2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Zwerger, ed.,The BCS–BEC Crossover and the Uni- tary Fermi Gas(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    W. Zwerger, ed.,The BCS–BEC Crossover and the Uni- tary Fermi Gas(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ketterle, Fermionic superfluidity with imbalanced spin populations, Science311, 492 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    G. B. Partridge, W. Li, R. I. Kamar, Y.-a. Liao, and R. G. Hulet, Pairing and phase separation in a polarized Fermi gas, Science311, 503–505 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Giorgini, L

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Theory of ultracold atomic Fermi gases, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1215 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Chevy and C

    F. Chevy and C. Mora, Ultracold polarized Fermi gases, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 112401 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Radzihovsky and D

    L. Radzihovsky and D. E. Sheehy, Imbalanced Feshbach- resonant Fermi gases, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 076501 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Y.-a. Liao, A. S. C. Rittner, T. Paprotta, W. Li, G. B. Partridge, R. G. Hulet, S. K. Baur, and E. J. Mueller, Spin imbalance in a one-dimensional Fermi gas, Nature 467, 567 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    M. C. Revelle, J. A. Fry, B. A. Olsen, and R. G. Hulet, 1D to 3D crossover of a spin-imbalanced Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett117, 235301 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Altman, E

    E. Altman, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body states of ultracold atoms via noise correlations, Phys. Rev. A70, 013603 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Greiner, C

    M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, J. T. Stewart, and D. S. Jin, Probing pair-correlated fermionic atoms through corre- lations in atom shot noise, Phys. Rev. Lett94, 110401 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Gupta, Z

    S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, C. H. Schunck, E. G. M. van Kempen, B. J. Verhaar, and W. Ketterle, Radio-frequency spec- troscopy of ultracold fermions, Science300, 1723 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    J. T. Stewart, J. P. Gaebler, and D. S. Jin, Using pho- toemission spectroscopy to probe a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature454, 744 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1999)

    P.-G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Zhu,Bogoliubov-de Gennes Method and Its Ap- plications, 1st ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    J.-X. Zhu,Bogoliubov-de Gennes Method and Its Ap- plications, 1st ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 924 (Springer (Cham), 2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    M. R. Bakhtiari, M. J. Leskinen, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Spectral signatures of the Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov or- der parameter in one-dimensional optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 120404 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kawamura and Y

    T. Kawamura and Y. Ohashi, Feasibility of a Fulde– Ferrell–Larkin–Ovchinnikov superfluid Fermi atomic gas, Phys. Rev. A106, 033320 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Vitali, P

    E. Vitali, P. Rosenberg, and S. Zhang, Exotic superfluid phases in spin-polarized Fermi gases in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 203201 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Parajuli, D

    B. Parajuli, D. Pecak, and C.-C. Chien, Atomic boson- fermion mixtures in one-dimensional box potentials: Few-body and mean-field many-body analyses, Phys. Rev. A107, 023308 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Jiang, L

    L. Jiang, L. O. Baksmaty, H. Hu, Y. Chen, and H. Pu, Single impurity in ultracold Fermi superfluids, Phys. Rev. A83, 061604 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. I. Mistakidis, and H. R. Sadegh- pour, Breaking and trapping Cooper pairs by Rydberg- molecule spectroscopy in atomic Fermi superfluids, Phys. Rev. A110, L051303 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. T. Rittenhouse, S. I. Mistakidis, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Tunable pairing with local spin- dependent Rydberg molecule potentials in an atomic Fermi superfluid, Phys. Rev. A111, 043316 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    de Gennes and G

    P.-G. de Gennes and G. Deutscher, Proximity effects, in Superconductivity, Vol. 2, edited by R. D. Parks (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969) pp. 1005–1034

    1969

  29. [37]

    D. S. Falk, Proximity effects in superconductors, Phys. Rev.132, 1576 (1963)

    1963

  30. [38]

    Silvert, The proximity effect in superconducting– normal-metal systems, Rev

    W. Silvert, The proximity effect in superconducting– normal-metal systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 251 (1964)

    1964

  31. [39]

    Yamazaki, N

    H. Yamazaki, N. S. P. Shannon, and H. Takagi, Proxim- ity effects in superconductor/normal-metal/ferromagnet trilayers, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.310, 2217 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    A. I. Buzdin, Proximity effects in superconductor– ferromagnet heterostructures, Reviews of Modern Physics77, 935 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1321 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. V. Veretennikov, A. Y. Rusanov, V. A. Larkin, and J. Aarts, Coupling of two superconductors through a ferromagnet: Evidence for aπjunction, Phys. Rev. Lett86, 2427 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Kontos, M

    T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, and X. Grison, Joseph- son junction through a thin ferromagnetic layer: Nega- tive coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett89, 137007 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Superconducting spin- tronics, Nature Physics11, 307 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintron- ics: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 104501 (2015)

    M. Eschrig, Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintron- ics: a review of current progress, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    J. W. A. Robinson, J. D. S. Witt, and M. G. Blamire, 12 Controlled injection of spin-triplet supercurrents into a strong ferromagnet, Science329, 59 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. W. A. Robinson, and M. G. Blamire, Re- versible control of spin-polarized supercurrents in ferro- magnetic Josephson junctions, Nature Communications 5, 4771 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    C. C. Chien, Spatially varying interactions induced in ul- tracold atoms by optical Feshbach resonance, Phys. Lett. A376, 729 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Piselli, S

    C. Piselli, S. Simonucci, and G. C. Strinati, Optimizing the proximity effect along the BCS side of the BCS–BEC crossover, Physical Review B98, 144508 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Dziarmaga, Dynamics of a quantum phase transition and relaxation to a steady state, Advances in Physics59, 1063 (2010)

    J. Dziarmaga, Dynamics of a quantum phase transition and relaxation to a steady state, Advances in Physics59, 1063 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Parajuli and C.-C

    B. Parajuli and C.-C. Chien, Proximity effect and spa- tial kibble-zurek mechanism in atomic Fermi gases with inhomogeneous pairing interactions, Phys. Rev. A107, 063314 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Bose–Einstein condensation of atoms in a uniform potential, Phys. Rev. Lett110, 200406 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Mukherjee, Z

    B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yef- sah, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, Homogeneous atomic Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 123401 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Z. Yan, B. Mukherjee, R. J. Fletcher, Z. Hadzibabic, and M. W. Zwierlein, Thermodynamics of a universal Fermi gas, Science368, 190 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    J. L. Ville, R. Saint-Jalm, S. Nascimb` ene, and C. Sa- lomon, Sound propagation in a uniform superfluid Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett121, 145301 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    A. M. Clogston, Upper limit for the critical field in hard superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  49. [57]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, A note on the maximum critical field of high-field superconductors, Applied Physics Let- ters1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  50. [58]

    Chien, Q

    C.-C. Chien, Q. Chen, Y. He, and K. Levin, Intermediate- temperature superfluidity in an atomic Fermi gas with population imbalance, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 090402 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems(McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1971)

    1971

  52. [60]

    A. A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals (North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1988)

    1988

  53. [61]

    Yang, Inhomogeneous superconducting state in quasi- one-dimensional systems, Phys

    K. Yang, Inhomogeneous superconducting state in quasi- one-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. B63, 140511 (2001)

    2001

  54. [62]

    Rizzi, M

    M. Rizzi, M. Polini, M. A. Cazalilla, M. R. Bakhtiari, M. P. Tosi, and R. Fazio, Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin– Ovchinnikov pairing in one-dimensional optical lattices, Phys. Rev. B77, 245105 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Orso, Attractive Fermi gases with unequal spin pop- ulations in highly elongated traps, Phys

    G. Orso, Attractive Fermi gases with unequal spin pop- ulations in highly elongated traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 070402 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Hu, X.-J

    H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, and P. D. Drummond, Phase diagram of a strongly interacting polarized Fermi gas in one di- mension, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 070403 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    Singh Roy and M

    M. Singh Roy and M. Kumar, Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin– Ovchinnikov phase in a one-dimensional Fermi gas with attractive interactions and transverse spin-orbit cou- pling, Phys. Rev. B110, 085159 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Gaudin, Un syst` eme ` a une dimension de fermions en interaction, Physics Letters A24, 55 (1967)

    M. Gaudin, Un syst` eme ` a une dimension de fermions en interaction, Physics Letters A24, 55 (1967)

    1967

  59. [67]

    C. N. Yang, Some exact results for the many-body prob- lem in one dimension with repulsive delta-function inter- action, Phys. Rev. Lett19, 1312 (1967)

    1967

  60. [68]

    X.-W. Guan, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, Fermi gases in one dimension: From bethe ansatz to experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1633 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    A. E. Feiguin and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Pairing states of a polarized Fermi gas trapped in a one-dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. B76, 220508(R) (2007)

    2007

  63. [71]

    Tezuka and M

    M. Tezuka and M. Ueda, Density-matrix renormalization group study of trapped imbalanced Fermi condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett100, 110403 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    G. G. Batrouni, M. H. Huntley, V. G. Rousseau, and R. T. Scalettar, Exact numerical study of pair formation with imbalanced fermion populations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116405 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    F. K. Fatemi, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, Observation of optically induced Feshbach resonances in cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett85, 4462 (2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    Theis, G

    M. Theis, G. Thalhammer, K. Winkler, M. Hellwig, G. Ruff, R. Grimm, and J. H. Denschlag, Tuning the scattering length with an optically induced Feshbach res- onance, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 123001 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, C. Vo, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Control of a magnetic Feshbach resonance with laser light, Nature Physics5, 339 (2009)

    2009

  68. [76]

    L. W. Clark, L.-C. Ha, C.-Y. Xu, and C. Chin, Quantum dynamics with spatiotemporal control of interactions in a stable Bose–Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett115, 155301 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Jagannathan, N

    A. Jagannathan, N. Arunkumar, J. A. Joseph, and J. E. Thomas, Optical control of magnetic Feshbach res- onances by closed-channel electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett116, 075301 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    Arunkumar, A

    N. Arunkumar, A. Jagannathan, and J. E. Thomas, De- signer spatial control of interactions in ultracold gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040405 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Di Carli, G

    A. Di Carli, G. Henderson, S. Flannigan, C. D. Colquhoun, M. W. Mitchell, G.-L. Oppo, A. J. Daley, S. Kuhr, and E. Haller, Excitation of collective modes in a quantum gas by spatially modulated interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett125, 183602 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Y. Shin, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ketterle, Tomographic rf spectroscopy of a trapped Fermi gas at unitarity, Phys. Rev. Lett99, 090403 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    Weitenberg, M

    C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single- spin addressing in an atomic Mott insulator, Nature471, 319 (2011)

    2011

  74. [82]

    Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170 (2016)

    S. Kuhr, Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold- atom quantum simulators, National Science Review3, 170 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Measurements of relative phase in two- component bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1543 (1998)

    1998

  76. [84]

    B. D. Esry and C. H. Greene, Spontaneous spatial sym- metry breaking in two-component bose-einstein conden- sates, Phys. Rev. A59, 1457 (1999)

    1999

  77. [85]

    K. L. Lee, N. B. Jørgensen, I.-K. Liu, L. Wacker, J. J. Arlt, and N. P. Proukakis, Phase separation and dynam- 13 ics of two-component bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A94, 013602 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    Parajuli, D

    B. Parajuli, D. Pecak, and C.-C. Chien, Mass-imbalance- induced structures of binary atomic mixtures in box po- tentials, Phys. Rev. A100, 063623 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Roth, Structure and stability of trapped atomic boson- fermion mixtures, Phys

    R. Roth, Structure and stability of trapped atomic boson- fermion mixtures, Phys. Rev. A66, 013614 (2002)

    2002

  80. [88]

    Ferrier-Barbut, M

    I. Ferrier-Barbut, M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, A. T. Grier, M. Pierce, B. S. Rem, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, A mixture of Bose and Fermi superfluids, Science345, 1035 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    B. J. DeSalvo, K. Patel, G. Cai, and C. Chin, Observation of fermion-mediated interactions between bosonic atoms, Nature568, 61 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.