Communal pairing in spin-imbalanced Fermi gases

Darryl Foo; Gareth Conduit; Thomas Whitehead

arxiv: 1906.10227 · v2 · pith:TC3MIJIXnew · submitted 2019-06-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.str-el

Communal pairing in spin-imbalanced Fermi gases

Darryl Foo , Thomas Whitehead , Gareth Conduit This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

keywords spin-imbalanced Fermi gascommunal pairingsuperconducting stateFulde-Ferrell-Larkin-OvchinnikovDiffusion Monte Carlodensity of statesCooper pairs

0 comments

The pith

Spin-imbalanced Fermi gases form a communal pairing superconducting state by superposing Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions.

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

The paper establishes that a spin-imbalanced Fermi gas with attractive contact interaction develops a superconducting state built from superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions. This construction correlates every available fermion instead of leaving excess spins unpaired. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting state is claimed to be energetically lower than the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state while automatically fixing the up-to-down fermion ratio to the ratio of their densities of states at the Fermi surfaces. The authors support the claim with both analytical arguments and Diffusion Monte Carlo calculations. If correct, the mechanism changes how one expects pairing to work when the two spin species have unequal populations.

Core claim

The authors claim that the superconducting state in spin-imbalanced Fermi gases consists of superpositions of Cooper pairs sharing minority-spin fermions. This includes correlations between all available fermions, making it energetically favorable compared to the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state. The number ratio of up- and down-spin fermions is set by the ratio of their densities of states in momentum at the Fermi surfaces, to fully utilize the accessible fermions.

What carries the argument

Communal pairing, realized as superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions so that every fermion participates according to the local density-of-states ratio.

If this is right

The up-to-down fermion ratio in the instability equals the ratio of the up- and down-spin densities of states at the Fermi surfaces.
The communal-pairing state lies below the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in energy.
Every fermion participates in the pairing, with no leftover unpaired majority spins.
Both analytical calculations and Diffusion Monte Carlo simulations produce consistent descriptions of the state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Cold-atom experiments could directly count the participating spins in the paired phase to test whether the observed ratio tracks the density-of-states ratio.
If the mechanism holds, similar shared-fermion pairing might appear in other systems with population imbalance, such as certain solid-state superconductors.
The stability window could be mapped by varying the interaction strength or the degree of imbalance to identify where communal pairing overtakes competing phases.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the superconducting instability can be described using superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions and that this leads to full utilization of fermions based on the density of states ratio.

What would settle it

An experimental or numerical measurement showing either that the spin ratio in the paired state deviates from the density-of-states ratio at the Fermi surfaces or that the energy lies above the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10227 by Darryl Foo, Gareth Conduit, Thomas Whitehead.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (Color online) Left: Plot of condensate fraction in pair momentum space in units of 1/2 √ 3πrs. The positions of expected peaks corresponding to a communal state (rsq = 1/ √ 3π), FFLO pairing (rsq = 1/2π), and BCS pairing (rsq = 0) are shown with green stars, black triangles and a magenta circle respectively. Communal type peaks are prominent with no obvious FFLO peaks and a mild BCS peak. The k-space g… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Plot of specific heat CV against ν↑/ν↓ for the energetically favourable communal (solid) and not energetically favourable FFLO (dotted) phases. Communal phases are labelled by the pair (N↑, N↓). The BCS phase denotes where the ChandrasekharClogston limit is breached, indicated by the vertical dashed line. The two curves coincide in the BCS and (1,1) phases. This can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A spin-imbalanced Fermi gas with an attractive contact interaction forms a superconducting state whose underlying components are superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions. This superconducting state includes correlations between all available fermions, making it energetically favorable to the Fulde--Ferrell--Larkin--Ovchinnikov superconducting state. The ratio of the number of up- and down-spin fermions in the instability is set by the ratio of the up- and down-spin density of states in momentum at the Fermi surfaces, to fully utilize the accessible fermions. We present analytical and complementary Diffusion Monte Carlo results for the state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Communal pairing is a fresh angle on imbalanced Fermi gases but the key ratio claim needs tighter derivation from the interacting Hamiltonian.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors define a communal pairing state built from superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions, claiming this uses every particle and beats FFLO when the up/down ratio equals the non-interacting DOS ratio at the two Fermi surfaces. They support the idea with both analytics and Diffusion Monte Carlo runs, which is a concrete plus for checking consistency. The DMC component at least gives an independent numerical handle on the energetics, and the focus on full fermion participation is a clear departure from standard FFLO pictures. That combination of methods is worth noting. The soft spot sits exactly where the stress-test flags it: the step that fixes the particle-number ratio to the bare DOS ratio at the Fermi surfaces does not obviously follow from the interacting Hamiltonian. If the quasiparticle dispersion or the fixed-node surface in DMC shifts the effective densities of states, the claimed energy minimum could move or disappear. The abstract states the ratio is chosen “to fully utilize the accessible fermions,” but without seeing the explicit mapping from the ansatz to that constraint it is hard to judge whether the advantage is derived or imposed. Minor issues like details of the DMC error bars or the precise form of the trial wave function would also need checking, but they are secondary to the ratio justification. The work is aimed at people already thinking about FFLO or spin-imbalanced pairing in ultracold gases. A reader in that niche would get value from the new ansatz and the numerical comparison even if they ultimately disagree with the conclusions. It shows enough formal structure and reproducible numerics to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject; the derivations around the ratio are the part that needs the closest look.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'communal pairing' superconducting state for spin-imbalanced Fermi gases with attractive contact interactions. The state is constructed from superpositions of Cooper pairs that share minority-spin fermions, allowing correlations among all available particles. This is claimed to be energetically lower than the FFLO state, with the up/down fermion ratio in the instability fixed exactly by the ratio of the non-interacting spin-dependent densities of states at the respective Fermi surfaces. Analytical arguments and Diffusion Monte Carlo results are presented in support.

Significance. If the wave-function construction and the resulting energetic comparison hold, the work would offer a new pairing mechanism that utilizes all fermions in imbalanced systems, with potential relevance to ultracold-atom experiments. The complementary use of analytical reasoning and DMC numerics is a positive feature.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and analytical section: the central claim that the particle-number ratio is set by the non-interacting DOS ratio at the Fermi surfaces is not derived from the interacting Hamiltonian or the proposed superposition ansatz; the step appears imposed rather than obtained by energy minimization, which directly affects the asserted advantage over FFLO.
[DMC results] DMC results section: without an explicit demonstration that the fixed-node surface or quasiparticle spectrum preserves the non-interacting DOS ratio (rather than shifting it), the numerical evidence cannot confirm that the communal state remains lower in energy than FFLO once interactions are fully accounted for.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction] The introduction would benefit from an early, explicit definition of the communal-pairing wave function before discussing its properties.
Notation for the spin-dependent densities of states should be defined consistently when first introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript concerning communal pairing in spin-imbalanced Fermi gases. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and analytical section: the central claim that the particle-number ratio is set by the non-interacting DOS ratio at the Fermi surfaces is not derived from the interacting Hamiltonian or the proposed superposition ansatz; the step appears imposed rather than obtained by energy minimization, which directly affects the asserted advantage over FFLO.

Authors: The communal pairing state is defined via a specific superposition ansatz in which Cooper pairs share minority-spin fermions to correlate every available particle. The up/down ratio is fixed to the non-interacting DOS ratio at the Fermi surfaces precisely so that the number of states available to each spin species matches exactly, ensuring no fermions remain unpaired by construction. This choice is therefore required by the ansatz itself rather than obtained from a free variational minimization over the ratio in the interacting Hamiltonian. We will revise the analytical section to state this motivation more explicitly while retaining the claim that the resulting state is lower in energy than FFLO because it utilizes the full phase space. revision: partial
Referee: [DMC results] DMC results section: without an explicit demonstration that the fixed-node surface or quasiparticle spectrum preserves the non-interacting DOS ratio (rather than shifting it), the numerical evidence cannot confirm that the communal state remains lower in energy than FFLO once interactions are fully accounted for.

Authors: The DMC trial wave function is constructed directly from the communal pairing ansatz, so the nodal surface inherits the DOS ratio through the occupation of the non-interacting Fermi surfaces. We agree that an explicit check of whether interactions shift this ratio would strengthen the comparison. In the revised manuscript we will add a short discussion of the quasiparticle spectrum extracted from the DMC runs to confirm that the ratio remains consistent with the ansatz within statistical error. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity exhibited; derivation chain not reducible from provided text

full rationale

The abstract states the communal-pairing state and asserts that the up/down fermion ratio equals the non-interacting DOS ratio at the Fermi surfaces 'to fully utilize the accessible fermions.' No equations, wave-function ansatz, Hamiltonian derivation, or self-citation chain appear in the supplied text. Without explicit steps showing that a claimed prediction or uniqueness result reduces by construction to a fitted input or prior self-citation, no load-bearing circular step can be quoted or exhibited. The central energetic comparison to FFLO therefore cannot be shown to be forced by definition from the given material.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Based on abstract only; additional parameters or axioms may exist in full text.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Fermi gas model with attractive contact interaction
Assumed standard model for the system under study.

invented entities (1)

communal pairing state no independent evidence
purpose: Describes the proposed superconducting state involving shared minority spins
Introduced in this paper as an alternative to FFLO.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5623 in / 1170 out tokens · 41012 ms · 2026-05-25T16:41:22.534338+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Bardeen, L.N

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 106, 162 (1957)

work page 1957
[2]

Bardeen, L.N

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

work page 1957
[3]

Fulde and R.A

P. Fulde and R.A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

work page 1964
[4]

Larkin, Y.N

A.I. Larkin, Y.N. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 762 (1965)

work page 1965
[5]

Whitehead and G.J

T.M. Whitehead and G.J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014502 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Bianchi, R

A. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, C. Ca- pan, P.G. Pagliuso, and J.L. Sarrao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187004 (2003)

work page 2003
[7]

Mayaﬀre, S

H. Mayaﬀre, S. Kr¨ amer, M. Horvati´ c, C. Berthier, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, and V.F. Mitrovi´ c, Nature Physics 10, 928 (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

Prozorov, M.D

R. Prozorov, M.D. Vannette, S.A. Law, S.L. Bud’ko, and P.C. Canﬁeld, Phys. Rev. B 77, 100503(R) (2008)

work page 2008
[9]

Canﬁeld, S.L

P.C. Canﬁeld, S.L. Bud’ko, and B.K. Cho, Physica C 262, 249 (1996)

work page 1996
[10]

Hamidian, S.D

M.H. Hamidian, S.D. Edkins, S.H. Joo, A. Kostin, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M.J. Lawler, 8 E.-A. Kim, A.P. Mackenzie, K. Fujita, J. Lee, and J.C.S. Davis, Nature 532, 343 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

Zhang and W

W. Zhang and W. Yi, Nat. Commun. 4, 2711 (2013)

work page 2013
[12]

Lo, S.-W

S.-T. Lo, S.-W. Lin, Y.-T. Wang, S.-D. Lin, and C.-T. Liang, Sci. Rep. 4, 5438 (2014)

work page 2014
[13]

Mukherjee, Z

B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P.B. Patel, Z. Hadz- ibabic, T. Yefsah, J. Struck, and M.W. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 123401 (2017)

work page 2017
[14]

Pisani, A

L. Pisani, A. Perali, P. Pieri and G. Calvanese Strinati, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014528 (2018)

work page 2018
[15]

Gor’kov and T.K

L.P. Gor’kov and T.K. Melik-Barkhudarov, JETP 13, 1018 (1964)

work page 1964
[16]

Bowers and K

J.A. Bowers and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D 66, 065002 (2002)

work page 2002
[17]

Casalbuoni and G

R. Casalbuoni and G. Nardulli, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 263 (2004)

work page 2004
[18]

Mora and R

C. Mora and R. Combescot, EPL 66, 833 (2004)

work page 2004
[19]

Kok and W.H

J.A. Kok and W.H. Keesom, Physica 4, 835 (1937)

work page 1937
[20]

Reynolds, B

C.A. Reynolds, B. Serin, and L.B. Nesbitt, Phys. Rev. 84, 691 (1951)

work page 1951
[21]

Horowitz, A.A

M. Horowitz, A.A. Silvidi, S.F. Malaker, and J.G. Daunt, Phys. Rev. 88, 1182 (1952)

work page 1952
[22]

Making, probing and understanding ultracold Fermi gases

W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, arXiv:0801.2500 (2008)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[23]

Chevy, Phys

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

work page 2006
[24]

Combescot and S

R. Combescot and S. Giraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 050404 (2008)

work page 2008
[25]

Massignan, M

P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G.M. Bruun, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 033401 (2014)

work page 2014
[26]

Heidrich-Meisner, G

F. Heidrich-Meisner, G. Orso, and A. E. Feiguin, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053602 (2010)

work page 2010
[27]

H. Lu, L. O. Baksmaty, C. J. Bolech and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 225302 (2012)

work page 2012
[28]

Chandrasekhar, Appl

B.S. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

work page 1962
[29]

Clogston, Phys

A.M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 266 (1962)

work page 1962
[30]

Q. Chen, Y. He, C.-C. Chien, and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063603 (2006)

work page 2006
[31]

J. Wang, Y. Che, L. Zhang, and Q. Chen, Sci. Rep. 7, 39783 (2017)

work page 2017
[32]

Needs, M

R. Needs, M. Towler, N. Drummond and P.L. R´ ıos,casino User’s Guide Version 2.13 (2015)

work page 2015
[33]

Drummond, R.J

N.D. Drummond, R.J. Needs, A. Sorouri and W.M.C. Foulkes, Phys. Rev. B 78, 125106 (2008)

work page 2008
[34]

Frenkel, Eur

D. Frenkel, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2013) 128: 10

work page 2013
[35]

Galea, H

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

work page 2016
[36]

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

work page 2004
[37]

Whitehead, L.M

T.M. Whitehead, L.M. Schonenberg, N. Kongsuwan, R.J. Needs and G.J. Con- duit, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042702 (2016)

work page 2016
[38]

Maezono, P.L

R. Maezono, P.L. R´ ıos, T. Ogawa and R.J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 216407 (2013)

work page 2013
[39]

Drummond, M.D

N.D. Drummond, M.D. Towler and R.J. Needs, Phys. Rev. B 70, 235119 (2004)

work page 2004
[40]

Whitehead, M.H

T.M. Whitehead, M.H. Michael and G.J. Con- duit, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035157 (2016)

work page 2016
[41]

Kent, R.J

P.R.C. Kent, R.J. Needs and G. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. B 59, 12344 (1999)

work page 1999
[42]

Schonenberg and G.J

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

work page 2017
[43]

Bulgac, M

A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 020402 (2006)

work page 2006
[44]

M.J.H. Ku, A.T. Sommer, L.W. Cheuk, and M.W. Zwierlein, Science 335, 563 (2012)

work page 2012
[45]

Altman, E

E. Altman, E. Demler, and M.D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 70, 013603 (2004). 9

work page 2004
[46]

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

work page 2015
[47]

Foo, T.M

D.C.W. Foo, T.M. Whitehead, and G.J. Con- duit, Cambridge University DSpace repository. 10

work page

[1] [1]

Bardeen, L.N

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 106, 162 (1957)

work page 1957

[2] [2]

Bardeen, L.N

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

work page 1957

[3] [3]

Fulde and R.A

P. Fulde and R.A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev.135, A550 (1964)

work page 1964

[4] [4]

Larkin, Y.N

A.I. Larkin, Y.N. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 762 (1965)

work page 1965

[5] [5]

Whitehead and G.J

T.M. Whitehead and G.J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014502 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Bianchi, R

A. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, C. Ca- pan, P.G. Pagliuso, and J.L. Sarrao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187004 (2003)

work page 2003

[7] [7]

Mayaﬀre, S

H. Mayaﬀre, S. Kr¨ amer, M. Horvati´ c, C. Berthier, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, and V.F. Mitrovi´ c, Nature Physics 10, 928 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Prozorov, M.D

R. Prozorov, M.D. Vannette, S.A. Law, S.L. Bud’ko, and P.C. Canﬁeld, Phys. Rev. B 77, 100503(R) (2008)

work page 2008

[9] [9]

Canﬁeld, S.L

P.C. Canﬁeld, S.L. Bud’ko, and B.K. Cho, Physica C 262, 249 (1996)

work page 1996

[10] [10]

Hamidian, S.D

M.H. Hamidian, S.D. Edkins, S.H. Joo, A. Kostin, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M.J. Lawler, 8 E.-A. Kim, A.P. Mackenzie, K. Fujita, J. Lee, and J.C.S. Davis, Nature 532, 343 (2016)

work page 2016

[11] [11]

Zhang and W

W. Zhang and W. Yi, Nat. Commun. 4, 2711 (2013)

work page 2013

[12] [12]

Lo, S.-W

S.-T. Lo, S.-W. Lin, Y.-T. Wang, S.-D. Lin, and C.-T. Liang, Sci. Rep. 4, 5438 (2014)

work page 2014

[13] [13]

Mukherjee, Z

B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P.B. Patel, Z. Hadz- ibabic, T. Yefsah, J. Struck, and M.W. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 123401 (2017)

work page 2017

[14] [14]

Pisani, A

L. Pisani, A. Perali, P. Pieri and G. Calvanese Strinati, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014528 (2018)

work page 2018

[15] [15]

Gor’kov and T.K

L.P. Gor’kov and T.K. Melik-Barkhudarov, JETP 13, 1018 (1964)

work page 1964

[16] [16]

Bowers and K

J.A. Bowers and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D 66, 065002 (2002)

work page 2002

[17] [17]

Casalbuoni and G

R. Casalbuoni and G. Nardulli, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 263 (2004)

work page 2004

[18] [18]

Mora and R

C. Mora and R. Combescot, EPL 66, 833 (2004)

work page 2004

[19] [19]

Kok and W.H

J.A. Kok and W.H. Keesom, Physica 4, 835 (1937)

work page 1937

[20] [20]

Reynolds, B

C.A. Reynolds, B. Serin, and L.B. Nesbitt, Phys. Rev. 84, 691 (1951)

work page 1951

[21] [21]

Horowitz, A.A

M. Horowitz, A.A. Silvidi, S.F. Malaker, and J.G. Daunt, Phys. Rev. 88, 1182 (1952)

work page 1952

[22] [22]

Making, probing and understanding ultracold Fermi gases

W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, arXiv:0801.2500 (2008)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

[23] [23]

Chevy, Phys

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

work page 2006

[24] [24]

Combescot and S

R. Combescot and S. Giraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 050404 (2008)

work page 2008

[25] [25]

Massignan, M

P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti, and G.M. Bruun, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 033401 (2014)

work page 2014

[26] [26]

Heidrich-Meisner, G

F. Heidrich-Meisner, G. Orso, and A. E. Feiguin, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053602 (2010)

work page 2010

[27] [27]

H. Lu, L. O. Baksmaty, C. J. Bolech and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 225302 (2012)

work page 2012

[28] [28]

Chandrasekhar, Appl

B.S. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

work page 1962

[29] [29]

Clogston, Phys

A.M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 266 (1962)

work page 1962

[30] [30]

Q. Chen, Y. He, C.-C. Chien, and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063603 (2006)

work page 2006

[31] [31]

J. Wang, Y. Che, L. Zhang, and Q. Chen, Sci. Rep. 7, 39783 (2017)

work page 2017

[32] [32]

Needs, M

R. Needs, M. Towler, N. Drummond and P.L. R´ ıos,casino User’s Guide Version 2.13 (2015)

work page 2015

[33] [33]

Drummond, R.J

N.D. Drummond, R.J. Needs, A. Sorouri and W.M.C. Foulkes, Phys. Rev. B 78, 125106 (2008)

work page 2008

[34] [34]

Frenkel, Eur

D. Frenkel, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2013) 128: 10

work page 2013

[35] [35]

Galea, H

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

work page 2016

[36] [36]

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

work page 2004

[37] [37]

Whitehead, L.M

T.M. Whitehead, L.M. Schonenberg, N. Kongsuwan, R.J. Needs and G.J. Con- duit, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042702 (2016)

work page 2016

[38] [38]

Maezono, P.L

R. Maezono, P.L. R´ ıos, T. Ogawa and R.J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 216407 (2013)

work page 2013

[39] [39]

Drummond, M.D

N.D. Drummond, M.D. Towler and R.J. Needs, Phys. Rev. B 70, 235119 (2004)

work page 2004

[40] [40]

Whitehead, M.H

T.M. Whitehead, M.H. Michael and G.J. Con- duit, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035157 (2016)

work page 2016

[41] [41]

Kent, R.J

P.R.C. Kent, R.J. Needs and G. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. B 59, 12344 (1999)

work page 1999

[42] [42]

Schonenberg and G.J

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

work page 2017

[43] [43]

Bulgac, M

A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 020402 (2006)

work page 2006

[44] [44]

M.J.H. Ku, A.T. Sommer, L.W. Cheuk, and M.W. Zwierlein, Science 335, 563 (2012)

work page 2012

[45] [45]

Altman, E

E. Altman, E. Demler, and M.D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 70, 013603 (2004). 9

work page 2004

[46] [46]

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

work page 2015

[47] [47]

Foo, T.M

D.C.W. Foo, T.M. Whitehead, and G.J. Con- duit, Cambridge University DSpace repository. 10

work page