Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Pairing in two-dimensional Fermi gases with a coordinate-space potential

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-dimensional Fermi gas's pairing gap is suppressed relative to mean-field BCS theory across the BEC-BCS crossover.

desk verdict Useful finite-range BCS check and larger-N DMC data, but the headline gap suppression rests on an uncontrolled average of two finite-N points and needs a real extrapolation before the benchmarks can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04782 v2 pith:DPIPSUSJ submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.quant-gas nucl-th

Tash Zielinski , Bernard Ross , Alexandros Gezerlis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnucl-th PACS 03.75.Ss03.75.Hh67.85.Lm05.30.Fk
keywords two-dimensionalFermigasBEC-BCScrossoverpairinggapdiffusionMonteCarloodd-evenstaggeringfinite-rangepotentialPöschl-Tellersuperfluidity
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

This paper asks how large the superfluid pairing gap is in a two-dimensional Fermi gas across the crossover from tightly bound dimers (BEC) to weakly bound Cooper pairs (BCS). It derives and solves a mean-field BCS gap equation for a finite-range coordinate-space potential, showing that the effective ranges used in the quantum Monte Carlo calculations are short enough to match the zero-range analytic result. It then extracts the pairing gap from diffusion Monte Carlo ground-state energies of 10 to 58 particles using odd-even energy staggering. The central result is that, toward the BCS regime, the Monte Carlo gaps are suppressed relative to the mean-field BCS prediction, a suppression qualitatively similar to a standard many-body correction. These gaps are offered as thermodynamic-limit benchmarks for other theoretical and experimental studies of two-dimensional Fermi superfluidity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing analytic object is the two-dimensional BCS gap equation for a coordinate-space potential, derived by expanding the gap function and the potential in angular momentum eigenstates and Bessel functions, Eq. (14): $\Delta_l(k) = -\int_0^\infty dk'\, k' V_l(k,k') \Delta_l(k') / (2 E(k'))$, where $V_l(k,k')$ is the Bessel-transformed partial-wave potential and $E(k)$ is the quasiparticle energy. This equation is solved self-consistently with the density equation to show that $k_F r_e = 0.006$ reproduces the zero-range analytic gap. The many-body extraction machinery is a Jastrow-BCS trial wave function with 10 optimized plane-wave pairing orbitals, propagated in imaginary time by fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo, combined with the odd-even staggering formula Eq. (20) applied to closed-shell particle numbers N = 10, 18, 26, 42, 50, 58 and their neighbors.

What would settle it

Run the same trial wave function and DMC procedure at larger closed shells such as N=74 or N=90 and extrapolate $\Delta(N)$ in $1/N$; if the extrapolated value moves outside the statistical errors of the N=50/N=58 average, the thermodynamic-limit claim is not settled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main claim is that the zero-temperature pairing gap in a two-dimensional Fermi gas, obtained from fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo energies via $\Delta(N)=E(N+1)-\frac{1}{2}[E(N+2)+E(N)]$, is smaller than the mean-field BCS prediction on the BCS side of the crossover, with the suppression growing as $\ln(k_F a)$ increases. The extracted gaps at $\eta = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0$ are compared with the analytic zero-range BCS result, and the DMC points fall below that curve, consistent in shape with the suppression predicted by a standard many-body perturbation theory. The paper also argues that the finite effective range of the interatomic potential, $k_F r_e \approx 0.006$, is irrelevant at the two-body and mean-field levels, so the DMC results can be interpreted as zero-range physics. The new ingredient that makes this statement non-trivial is that previous small-system DMC calculations found gaps larger than mean-field BCS on the BCS side; the larger particle numbers used here reverse that trend.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the odd-even staggering of diffusion Monte Carlo energies at N=50 and N=58, averaged together, already equals the infinite-system pairing gap; if finite-size or fixed-node errors shift these energy differences, the reported suppression could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the DMC gaps are correct, they provide thermodynamic-limit benchmarks across the two-dimensional BEC-BCS crossover that other many-body methods can be tested against.
  • On the BCS side, the suppression relative to mean-field BCS indicates that mean-field theory overestimates pairing in two dimensions, and the magnitude of the effect agrees qualitatively with the standard many-body correction.
  • The newly derived finite-range gap equation shows that coordinate-space potentials with $k_F r_e \lesssim 0.1$ can be used in quantum Monte Carlo without corrupting the zero-range physics for $\eta \ge 0$.
  • The odd-even staggering at N=50 and N=58 gives a smaller gap than earlier N=26 calculations, so finite-size effects in two-dimensional pairing gaps are significant and must be handled by going to larger systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the paper leaves implicit: the same coordinate-space BCS equation could be applied to neutron-star crust pairing, where the effective range of the nuclear interaction is not negligible, to check how much finite-range effects change the gap.
  • The paper's finite-size analysis suggests that non-interacting-gas shell structure can be used to design a systematic $1/N$ extrapolation of the pairing gap; implementing such an extrapolation at say N=74 or N=90 would test the thermodynamic-limit claim.
  • If cold-atom experiments in quasi-2D geometries can measure the pairing gap directly, the predicted suppression could be tested against experiment; agreement would confirm that beyond-mean-field corrections are essential in two dimensions.
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 paper studies pairing in two-dimensional Fermi gases across the BEC-BCS crossover. The authors first derive and solve the mean-field BCS gap equation for a finite-range coordinate-space potential (modified Pöschl-Teller), showing that for the small effective ranges used in their Quantum Monte Carlo simulations (k_F r_e ≈ 0.006) the finite-range corrections are negligible compared with the zero-range analytical result. They then perform variational and diffusion Monte Carlo calculations for particle numbers N = 10, 18, 26, 42, 50, 58 and their N+1, N+2 neighbors, at interaction strengths η = ln(k_F a) from 0.5 to 3.0. The pairing gap is extracted from the odd-even energy staggering of Eq. (20), and the thermodynamic-limit gap is approximated by averaging the N = 50 and N = 58 values. The central physical claim is that on the BCS side of the crossover the DMC pairing gap is suppressed relative to the mean-field BCS prediction, in qualitative agreement with Gorkov-Melik-Barkhudarov theory, and that these results provide thermodynamic-limit benchmarks.

Significance. If the extracted gaps are reliable, the paper provides valuable microscopic benchmarks for pairing in 2D Fermi gases, a system of direct experimental relevance. The finite-range BCS derivation in Sec. III is a clean, useful contribution, and the systematic DMC energy calculations for many particle numbers at several interaction strengths go beyond earlier work that used only N = 26. The authors are also transparent that the variational property does not apply to the energy differences used in Eq. (20), and their two-body binding-energy check in Fig. 1 gives a sensible justification for neglecting finite-range effects. The comparison with Gorkov-Melik-Barkhudarov theory and with the dynamical-cluster results of Vitali et al. frames the main physics claim appropriately. However, the quantitative benchmark status of the DMC gaps is not yet secured because the thermodynamic-limit extraction and the associated uncertainties are not controlled.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (20), Figs. 9-10] The central claim of BCS-side suppression is carried by the DMC gaps shown in Figs. 9 and 10, but these gaps are presented without any statistical or systematic uncertainty estimate. The text states in Sec. IV that the statistical errors in the DMC energies of Figs. 7 and 8 are smaller than the symbols, yet no error bars or confidence intervals are propagated through Eq. (20) into the final gap values. Without quantified uncertainties, the reader cannot judge whether the suppression relative to mean-field BCS, which is the paper's main conclusion, is statistically significant.
  2. [Section V, paragraph beginning 'To re-cap'] The thermodynamic-limit gap is approximated as 'the average of our best two sets of points,' namely the odd-even staggering at N = 50 and N = 58. This is not a controlled finite-size extrapolation: the two particle numbers are adjacent closed shells with the same shell structure, so averaging them does not remove a common finite-size bias. The non-interacting finite-size behavior shown in Fig. 6 is discussed qualitatively but is not subtracted from the interacting gaps, and no sensitivity test (e.g., using N = 42 or including a free-gas-based correction) is reported. The resulting systematic bias could be comparable in magnitude to the claimed suppression, so the benchmark values in Fig. 9 require a more robust extrapolation or an explicit error band.
  3. [Section IV, discussion following Eq. (20)] The paper correctly notes that a variational property applies to the total DMC energy but not to the energy difference of Eq. (20). This is a real limitation for the gap extraction: the fixed-node error may differ between the closed-shell even systems and the open-shell odd systems, and no test of this nodal-error imbalance is provided. A practical check would be to compare VMC and DMC estimates of the staggering, or to vary the pairing-orbital parameters and observe the stability of the gap. As it stands, neither the fixed-node error nor the finite-size error in the gap is controlled, and both could affect the qualitative conclusion of BCS-side suppression.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'inticate' (Sec. III), 'eaqulity' (Eq. (13) derivation), 'p aticle' and 'N mber' (Fig. 5 axis), 'uni s' (Fig. 10 axis), and '/uni0394fg' (Fig. 6 axis).
  2. [Eq. (20) and surrounding text] The notation ∆(N) in Eq. (20) is used for the odd-even staggering, while the physical pairing gap is denoted ∆_gap and ∆(k) appears in the BCS section. Please clarify the relation between these quantities to avoid confusion when reading Figs. 9 and 10.
  3. [References] Reference [52] is incomplete as printed, and reference [27] appears to duplicate [22]. Please update these entries.
  4. [Fig. 6] The caption of Fig. 6 says the pairing gap applied to the non-interacting gas is zero in the large-system limit, but the finite values for small systems are finite-size artifacts. Since this figure is used to motivate the choice of N = 50 and N = 58, it would be helpful to show the numerical values of ∆_fg(N) in a table or in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DMC pairing gap is an extracted energy-difference observable, not a fit, and self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claim—suppression of the pairing gap relative to mean-field BCS—is obtained from Eq. (20), the odd-even energy staggering of DMC total energies, with the thermodynamic limit approximated by averaging the N=50 and N=58 sets. The trial wave function parameters are optimized by VMC against the total energy, not against the gap; the potential parameters are tuned to the scattering length and effective range in the two-body problem (Eqs. (3)-(5) and accompanying text), not to the pairing gap. The mean-field BCS comparison in Eq. (6) is derived from the same two-body binding energy, but the DMC gap is an independent many-body observable, so the comparison is not a reduction by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [43,45] supply the Jastrow-BCS trial wave function and the partial-wave two-body formalism; these are inherited methodology, and the present paper tests the relevant finite-range and finite-size assumptions rather than importing the target result. The BCS-side suppression is an output of the DMC energy differences and is compared with external results (Vitali et al., Gorkov-Melik-Barkhudarov), so the central claim has independent content. The uncontrolled finite-size approximation in Section V is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity: no equation or fit reproduces the gap by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on potential calibration, variational optimization of the trial wave function, and a finite-size averaging prescription; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Pöschl-Teller potential depth v0 = not reported; tuned to target scattering length and effective range
    Sets the interaction strength in the two-body and many-body calculations; the reported gaps depend on this calibration.
  • Pöschl-Teller potential range parameter ν = not reported; tuned to target k_F a and k_F r_e
    Together with v0 defines the finite range; the paper checks that k_F r_e ≈ 0.006 is short enough.
  • Ten plane-wave coefficients in the pairing orbital φ(r) = optimized by VMC for each N; values not given
    Variational parameters shape the trial wave function and thus the fixed-node DMC energies from which the gap is extracted.
  • High-momentum supplement parameters in φ(r) = not given
    Added variational flexibility beyond the ten plane waves; optimized per particle number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BCS gap equation is applied with a free single-particle spectrum, omitting normal-state self-energy corrections.
    Explicitly stated in Section III after Eq. (9): 'a more complete study would also involve normal-state interactions.' The mean-field finite-range results rely on this simplification.
  • domain assumption The fixed-node approximation errors are negligible because the trial wave function contains the relevant pairing correlations.
    Section IV: 'Assuming the trial wave function has the appropriate physical content ... the effect of the fixed-node approximation ends up being tiny.' Energy differences, not just total energies, are used.
  • domain assumption The pairing gap can be extracted from odd-even energy staggering in a finite periodic box, Eq. (20).
    The gap definition in Eq. (20) assumes total energies of closed-shell N, N+1 and N+2 systems are sufficient; shell and finite-size effects are handled indirectly via the non-interacting gas comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermodynamic-limit gap is approximated by averaging the N=50 and N=58 staggering values.
    Section V: 'we have chosen to approximate the thermodynamic-limit value ... as the average of our best two sets of points, namely N=50 and N=58 and their neighbors.' This is a stated modeling choice, not a controlled extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The Pöschl-Teller potential with k_F r_e ≈ 0.006 represents the zero-range limit for the DMC interactions.
    Supported by two-body binding results and the finite-range BCS comparison, but checked only for η = -0.5 and η = 0.5 in the two-body case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pairing in two-dimensional Fermi gases with a coordinate-space potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPIPSUSJ

@misc{pith2026190804782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pairing in two-dimensional Fermi gases with a coordinate-space potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPIPSUSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04782}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we theoretically study pairing in two-dimensional Fermi gases, a system which is experimentally accessible using cold atoms. We start by deriving the mean-field pairing gap equation for a coordinate-space potential with a finite interaction range, and proceed to solve this numerically. We find that for sufficiently short effective ranges the answer is identical to the zero-range one. We then use Diffusion Monte Carlo to evaluate the total energy for many distinct particle numbers; we employ several variational parameters to produce a good ground-state energy and then use these results to extract the pairing gap across a number of interaction strengths in the strongly interacting two-dimensional crossover. Extracting the gap via the odd-even energy staggering, our microscopic results can be used as benchmarks for other theoretical approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04782 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Two-body binding energy vs effective range. To make [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mean-field BCS results versus interaction strength, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DMC energy-per-particle for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exploration of the finite-size effects on the DMC en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Non-interacting energy per particle as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The pairing gap of Eq. (20) applied to the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Looking at the general shape of the DMC en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Re-scaled DMC pairing gaps (squares) compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. DMC pairing gaps throughout the strongly interact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

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

    2008

  2. [2]

    Giorgini, L

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

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Levinsen and M

    J. Levinsen and M. M. Parish, Annu. Rev. Cold At. Mol. 3, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Carlson, S.Y

    J. Carlson, S.Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 050401 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    S. Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043602 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200404 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    M. M. Forbes, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 235303 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Gandolfi, K

    S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. A 83, 041601 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    M. M. Forbes, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 86, 053603 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 01A209 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Pilati, I

    S. Pilati, I. Zintchenko, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett . 112, 015301 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    L. M. Schonenberg, G. J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. A 95, 013633 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Dawkins and A

    W. Dawkins and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 96, 043619 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    G¨ unter, T

    K. G¨ unter, T. St¨ oferle, H. Moritz, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230401 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Martiyanov, V

    K. Martiyanov, V. Makhalov, and A. Turlapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 030404 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Fr¨ ohlich, M

    B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Feld, E. Vogt, M. Koschorreck, W. Zw- erger, and M. K¨ ohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 105301 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    M. Feld, B. Fr¨ ohlich, E. Vogt, M. Koschorreck, and M. K¨ ohl, Nature.480, 75-78 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    A. A. Orel, P. Dyke, M. Delehaye, C. J. Vale, and H. Hu, New J. Phys. 13, 113032 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    P. Dyke, E. D. Kuhnle, S. Whitlock, H. Hu, M. Mark, S. Hoinka, M. Lingham, P. Hannaford, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 105304 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, M. J. H. Ku, W. S. Bakr, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 045302 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Makhalov, K

    V. Makhalov, K. Martiyanov, and A. Turlapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 045301 (2014)

    2014

  14. [23]

    Ong, C.-Y

    W. Ong, C.-Y. Cheng, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110403 (2015)

    2015

  15. [24]

    P. A. Murthy, I. Boettcher, L. Bayha, M. Holzmann, D. Kedar, M. Neidig, M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 010401 (2015)

    2015

  16. [25]

    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

  17. [26]

    Fenech, P

    K. Fenech, P. Dyke, T. Peppler, M. G. Lingham, S. Hoinka, H. Hu, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 045302 (2016)

    2016

  18. [27]

    Boettcher, L

    I. Boettcher, L. Bayha, D. Kedar, P. A. Murthy, M. Nei- dig, M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, S. Jochim, and T. Enss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 045303 (2016)

    2016

  19. [28]

    Martiyanov, T

    K. Martiyanov, T. Barmashova, V. Makhalov, and A. Turlapov, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063622 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    Cheng, J

    C. Cheng, J. Kangara, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A 94, 031606 (2016)

    2016

  21. [30]

    Luciuk, S

    C. Luciuk, S. Smale, F. Bttcher, H. Sharum, B. A. Olsen, S. Trotzky, T. Enss, and J. H. Thywissen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130405 (2017)

    2017

  22. [31]

    Toniolo, B

    U. Toniolo, B. C. Mulkerin, C. J. Vale, X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 96, 041604(R) (2017)

    2017

  23. [32]

    Nishida and S

    Y. Nishida and S. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170401 (2008). 9

    2008

  24. [33]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. B 82, 054524 (2010)

    2010

  25. [34]

    Valiente, N

    M. Valiente, N. T. Zinner, and K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. A 84, 063626 (2011)

    2011

  26. [35]

    Bertaina and S

    G. Bertaina and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 110403 (2011)

    2011

  27. [36]

    Werner and Y

    F. Werner and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A 86, 013626 (2012)

    2012

  28. [37]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. M. Parish, and T. Enss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 135302 (2014)

    2014

  29. [38]

    H. Shi, S. Chiesa, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033603 (2015)

    2015

  30. [39]

    E. R. Anderson and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 115301 (2015)

    2015

  31. [40]

    L. He, H. L¨ u, G. Cao, H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023620 (2015)

    2015

  32. [41]

    Rammelm¨ uller, W

    L. Rammelm¨ uller, W. J. Porter and J. E. Drut, Phys. Rev. A, 93, 033639 (2016)

    2016

  33. [42]

    L. He, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 373, 470 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Galea, H

    A. Galea, H. Dawkins, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023602 (2016)

    2016

  35. [44]

    Klawunn, Phys

    M. Klawunn, Phys. Lett. A. 380, 34 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Galea, T

    A. Galea, T. Zielinski, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, J Low Temp Phys 189, 451 (2017)

    2017

  37. [46]

    Vitali, H

    E. Vitali, H. Shi, M. Qin, S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 96, 061601(R) (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    L. M. Schonenberg, P. C. Verpoort, G. J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023619 (2017)

    2017

  39. [48]

    J. E. Drut, J. R. McKenney, W. S. Daza, C. L. Lin, C. R. Ordez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243002 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    Jeszenszki, A

    P. Jeszenszki, A. Alavi, J. Brand, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033608 (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    Gezerlis and J

    A. Gezerlis and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 77, 032801 (2008)

    2008

  42. [51]

    Gandolfi, A

    S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, and J. Carlson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 303 (2015)

    2015

  43. [52]

    Buraczynski and A

    M. Buraczynski and A. Gezerlis, Rev. Lett. 116, (2016)

    2016

  44. [53]

    Horikoshi, M

    M. Horikoshi, M. Koashi, H. Tajima, Y. Ohashi, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  45. [54]

    Miyake, Prog

    K. Miyake, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69, 1794 (1983)

    1983

  46. [55]

    Randeria, J.-M

    M. Randeria, J.-M. Duan, and L.-Y. Shieh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 981 (1989); Phys. Rev. B 41, 327 (1990)

    1989

  47. [56]

    D. S. Petrov, M. A. Baranov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 67, 031601(R) (2003)

    2003

  48. [57]

    L. P. Gorkov and T. K. Melik-Barkhudarov, JETP, 40, 1452 (1961) [Soviet Phys. JETP 13, 1018 (1961)]

    1961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.