Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

At unitarity, the strong pairing correlations of a trapped Fermi gas erase its shell structure, leaving the interaction's effective range to control the weak shell features that remain.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:47 UTC pith:W6AKSFY4

load-bearing objection Solid QMC scan showing effective range controls shell survival at unitarity, but 'complete elimination' is overstated and the odd-N trial state is unspecified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14214 v1 pith:W6AKSFY4 submitted 2026-07-15 nucl-th cond-mat.quant-gas

Exploring the shell structure of trapped superfluid gases

G. Palkanoglou , R. Curry , S. Gandolfi This is my paper
classification nucl-th cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords trapped Fermi gasunitary limitshell structureeffective rangequantum Monte Carlopairing gapodd-even staggeringshell evolution
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.

This paper asks what happens to the shell structure of a few fermions in a harmonic trap when the interaction is tuned to unitarity, the limit of infinite scattering length. Using diffusion Monte Carlo with a BCS-based trial wavefunction, the authors compute ground-state energies for even and odd particle numbers up to N=44 and extract the two-particle shell gap and the odd-even-staggering pairing gap. They find that the magic-number closures of the trap—N=2, 8, 20, 40—vanish completely for more than four particles at unitarity, leaving a flat shell gap near 0.25ℏω. They attribute this loss of shell structure to strong superfluid pairing correlations, which suppress single-particle motion; the effective range of the interaction, not the scattering length, is what controls the weak shell features that remain. The result matters because dilute neutron-rich matter is expected to behave like a unitary Fermi gas, offering a laboratory route to understanding why shell closures disappear in neutron-rich nuclei.

Core claim

The central claim is that at unitarity—infinite scattering length with an effective range much smaller than the trap's oscillator length—the two-particle shell gap Δ2N is flat at about 0.25ℏω, and no peaks appear at the harmonic-oscillator magic numbers for N>4. The authors show this by forming the first and second derivatives of the even-particle-number energy curve and by computing pairing gaps from odd-even staggering. They observe that the pairing gap at unitarity is large, smooth, and free of the minima that coincide with shell closures at larger effective range, and they conclude that this strong pairing is what erases the shell structure. Finite effective range restores partial shell

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is diffusion Monte Carlo guided by a BCS-inspired trial wavefunction—an antisymmetrized product of pair orbitals times a symmetric Jastrow factor—which gives ground-state energies for both even and odd particle numbers. The interaction is a modified Pöschl-Teller potential whose depth and range are tuned to fix the two-body scattering length and effective range. The evidence is carried by finite-difference observables: the two-particle separation energy S2N = E(N) − E(N−2), the two-particle shell gap Δ2N = S2N(N) − S2N(N−2), and the odd-even-staggering pairing gap extracted from three- and five-point formulas. The pairing gap is the link between the loss of shell s

Load-bearing premise

The fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo energies, computed with BCS-based trial wavefunctions, are assumed to be accurate enough to resolve energy differences of order 0.1ℏω for both even and odd particle numbers; any systematic bias in the odd-particle-number trial state would corrupt the pairing-gap explanation even if the shell suppression itself is real.

What would settle it

An exact diagonalization of N = 6 to 12 trapped unitary fermions with the same interaction parameters, or a high-precision cold-atom measurement of two-particle separation energies at unitarity, would settle the question: if shell-closure peaks appear at N=8 or N=20, the claimed elimination of shell structure fails. A cheaper internal check is to recompute the odd-N ground states with an explicitly different trial wavefunction (e.g., one that breaks the pairing ansatz) and compare the odd-even-staggering gaps.

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

If this is right

  • Few-atom cold-atom experiments near unitarity should see no enhanced stability at the trap's magic numbers (N=8, 20, 40); instead, the two-particle separation energy should vary smoothly, with only effective-range-dependent weak features.
  • The effective range becomes a practical control knob: tuning the range of the interaction (e.g., via Feshbach resonances or tight confinement) should turn the N=8 shell closure and the shifted N≈24 feature on and off in a predictable way.
  • The pairing-driven suppression of shell effects offers a concrete mechanism for shell evolution in neutron-rich nuclei, where dilute neutron skins experience strong short-range interactions; this complements existing explanations based on tensor forces and three-body forces.
  • The dimensionless pairing strength ΔN/E(N), which plateaus at mid-shell and drops at closures, provides a quantity that can be compared across trapped gases and nuclei as a measure of how pairing competes with shell structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • We speculate that the flat shell gap of about 0.25ℏω at unitarity is a universal finite-trap feature that should scale with the trap frequency; measuring it at several trap depths would give a new few-body benchmark for unitary Fermi gas theories.
  • A direct experimental knob that the paper leaves implicit is the trap anisotropy: if pairing truly erases shell structure, the suppression should be insensitive to small deviations from the spherical harmonic trap, while single-particle shell effects would be sensitive to it.
  • One testable extension is to compute the one-body momentum distribution or the pair-correlation function of these trapped systems; if pairing is the cause, a strong depletion of the Fermi surface should appear at unitarity and grow with particle number.
  • The extrapolation to neutron-rich nuclei rests on the neutron-neutron interaction's large effective range mimicking unitarity; a natural next step, not taken in the paper, is to repeat the DMC calculation with a realistic nuclear force in a Wood-Saxon-shaped trap and check whether the shell-gap suppression survives.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo ground-state energies for a two-component Fermi gas confined in a harmonic trap and interacting via a Pöschl-Teller potential, for particle numbers up to approximately N=40. Shell structure is quantified through two-particle separation energies and two-particle shell gaps, and pairing correlations are quantified through odd-even staggering. The central claim is that at unitarity with small effective range the shell structure is completely eliminated for N>4, while a finite effective range restores shell closures; the mechanism is attributed to strong pairing correlations. The results are argued to be relevant for understanding shell evolution in neutron-rich nuclei.

Significance. If the even-N DMC energies are unbiased, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable prediction for few-atom trap experiments: at unitarity, the effective range controls the reappearance of shell closures (N=8 and a shifted feature near N=24). The calculations are nonperturbative and the observables are defined transparently from independent energy calculations rather than fitted to shell structure. The comparison with neutron-matter AFDMC results is a useful bridge to nuclear physics, although the nuclear connection remains qualitative. The main weakness is that the odd-N trial wavefunction is not specified, which directly affects the OES-based pairing-gap analysis that underpins the proposed mechanism; this, together with the overstatement in the conclusions, needs to be addressed before the claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The trial wavefunction is built from N/2 BCS pairs and is therefore defined only for even N, but the OES pairing gaps of Eqs. (9)-(10) require energies for odd N. No odd-N trial state is specified anywhere. Fixed-node DMC is variational for each parity separately, and nodal errors are not controlled by any small parameter. The energy differences that define Δ2N are ~0.1-1ℏω and the OES values are ~0.5-1.5ℏω, so an uncontrolled odd-N node can easily shift odd-N energies by the scale of the effect. The manuscript must specify the odd-N ansatz, benchmark small-N odd systems against exact diagonalization or existing few-atom experiments, and show that the OES and Δ2N results are robust to changes in the odd-N trial function.
  2. [Section V, first paragraph; Fig. 4] The conclusion states 'complete elimination of shell effects at unitarity ... for N>4 in all calculated quantities,' but the paper's own data show residual structure. At r̃e=0.25, a weak N=8 peak and an N=24 feature persist (Fig. 4). At r̃e=0.1, the text says Δ2N 'strongly oscillates around 0.25ℏω' and the OES at unitarity 'displaying peaks at the particle numbers where shell-closures are expected' (Section IV.C). The conclusion should be tempered to 'strong suppression' and should specify which quantities and which particle numbers.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The finite-point OES formulas are derived assuming a slow, smooth variation of E(N) on each parity curve, and the text itself concedes this assumption is violated near shell closures. For r̃e=0.5, the OES minima at N=10 and 22 coincide with shell closures and could be finite-difference artifacts rather than physical suppression of pairing. The claim that pairing correlations 'completely eliminate' shell effects therefore needs a validation that these features survive under different finite-point stencils or an explicit smooth-curve fit, especially because the same formulas produce peaks at shell-closure locations at unitarity.
  4. [Section IV.C, Fig. 6] The comparison of the OES to the thermodynamic-limit Bertsch parameter η is used as a sanity check, but the OES for a finite trapped system is not the same as the uniform-matter pairing gap. No finite-size extrapolation or trap correction is presented, and the discrepancy with η_EXP is not quantified. This does not invalidate the even-N shell-structure results, but it weakens the use of OES as quantitative evidence for the pairing mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.B] Typo: 'the lsteep decrease of the energy' should read 'the steep decrease of the energy'.
  2. [Section IV.C] Typo: 'a constant plateau independent independent of N' should be 'independent of N'.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (3)] In the imaginary-time propagator e^{-τ(H-ℏ)/ℏ}, the subtraction 'ℏ' is dimensionally inconsistent unless ℏ denotes an energy E_T; define E_T or an equivalent trial-energy parameter.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The label 'a = -∞' for the unitary case is confusing; the unitary limit is |a|→∞ and is independent of the sign convention. Use 'a=∞' or 'unitary'.
  5. [Fig. 2] The legend entry 's-wave neutrons' followed by 'AFDMC (AV8')' is ambiguous. Clarify whether the AFDMC points are for homogeneous neutron matter re-scaled to the trap or for trapped neutrons, and specify the trap frequency used.
  6. [Section III] The manuscript does not report DMC statistical uncertainties, number of walkers, or time-step bias controls. Given that the key conclusions rely on energy differences of ~0.1ℏω, a short paragraph on numerical parameters and error estimation would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DMC energies are independent inputs, and the shell gaps, separation energies, and OES pairing gaps are finite differences of those energies rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain runs from a specified Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) through fixed-node DMC with a BCS-type trial wavefunction (Eqs. 4-6) to ground-state energies E(N), from which S2N, Δ2N, and OES are computed via Eqs. (7)-(10). None of the trial parameters are fitted to shell gaps, OES values, or the final shell-structure conclusions; the variational parameters c_k and α are optimized to minimize the variational energy before each DMC run, not to reproduce the target observables. The shell gap Δ2N and the OES pairing gap Δ_N are different linear combinations of the same E(N) values, but they are not algebraically identical: Δ2N(N)=E(N)-2E(N-2)+E(N-4), while Δ_N^(3)=[-E(N+1)+2E(N)-E(N-1)]/2. Thus the claim that strong pairing accompanies the disappearance of shell structure is a physical interpretation of correlated finite differences, not a reduction-by-construction. The self-citations to Refs. [57], [59], and [62] support methodology or provide consistency arguments, but they are not load-bearing: the shell-effect elimination at unitarity is read directly from the calculated energies and their derivatives, and the OES formulas are standard finite-point definitions. The legitimate concern that the odd-N trial wavefunction is unspecified, and that fixed-node bias could affect 0.1–1 ℏω energy differences, is a numerical correctness risk rather than circularity, because the paper does not assume the pairing answer in defining the observables or in optimizing the wavefunction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented entities and fits no free parameter to the target result; its input surface is a chosen grid of two-body potential parameters, a trial-wavefunction family with variational parameters, and three interpretive assumptions: fixed-node DMC accuracy, OES-as-pairing-gap, and the neutron-matter/unitary-gas mapping. The last is the most ad hoc — the nuclear relevance hangs on it, and the authors flag the trap limitation themselves.

free parameters (3)
  • Interaction parameter grid (v0, β for Pöschl-Teller potential) = ã ∈ {−0.25, −1, ∞}; r̃e ∈ {0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0}; neutron run: a=−18.5 fm, re=2.7 fm, ℏω=10 MeV
    Chosen by the authors to scan scattering length and effective range; inputs to the calculation, not fitted to the shell-structure result, but the grid choice shapes every figure.
  • Pair-wavefunction variational parameters c_k and α (Eq. 6) = N_c=12; α and c_k optimized by stochastic reconfiguration
    Optimized to minimize the VMC energy before each DMC run; standard practice, yet they are free parameters in the trial state and influence nodal surfaces.
  • Jastrow factor f_J = taken from Ref. [57]; form not given
    Trial-state input adopted without specifying its functional form, so the reader cannot re-derive the calculations.
axioms (5)
  • standard math The modified Pöschl-Teller potential with v0=1 realizes unitarity with exact effective range re=2/β
    Section II; standard analytic two-body result; universality of the unitary regime makes the potential form irrelevant in the limit.
  • domain assumption Fixed-node DMC with the BCS-based trial wavefunction gives ground-state energies accurate enough for 0.1–1ℏω energy differences
    Section III; no benchmark against exact diagonalization or few-atom experiments for these trap sizes is reported.
  • domain assumption Odd-even staggering (Eqs. 9–10) equals the superfluid pairing gap in these finite trapped systems
    Section IV.C; requires smooth even/odd energy curves, a condition violated at shell closures, which the authors acknowledge.
  • domain assumption The trapped unitary Fermi gas is scale-invariant so E(N) is smooth (E ∝ N^{4/3})
    Section IV.B; consistent with the universal thermodynamics of the unitary Fermi gas; underlies the interpretation of flat Δ2N.
  • ad hoc to paper Dilute neutron matter in neutron-rich nuclei behaves like the trapped unitary Fermi gas
    Section V; the entire nuclear-physics payoff depends on this analogy; the authors themselves note the harmonic trap is not the finite-depth nuclear potential.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13257 in / 26709 out tokens · 266711 ms · 2026-08-02T02:47:07.957857+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We provide quantum Monte Carlo calculations of a two-component Fermi system interacting with an attractive interaction confined in harmonic traps. We investigate the role of the interaction's scattering length and effective range and show its important role in modifying shell effects in the structure of these systems. We show that in the strongly interacting regime, where the scattering length is large, the dominant role to shell effects is due to the effective range. These conclusions are very relevant for nuclear physics, in particular for neutron-rich systems, and open the way to perform new atomic experiments that can help to explain the disappearance of shell-effects in nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14214 by G. Palkanoglou, R. Curry, S. Gandolfi.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The ground state energy (in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The two particle shell gap (in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The OES approaching unitarity, for ˜r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.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

66 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ketterle and M

    W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento31, 247 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Giorgini, L

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

    2008

  3. [3]

    Randeria and E

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

    2014

  4. [4]

    M. J. H. Ku, A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science335, 563 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Navon, S

    N. Navon, S. Nascimb` ene, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Science328, 729 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Hoinka, M

    S. Hoinka, M. Lingham, M. Delehaye, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 050403 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Hoinka, M

    S. Hoinka, M. Lingham, K. Fenech, H. Hu, C. J. Vale, J. E. Drut, and S. Gandolfi, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 055305 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

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

    2012

  9. [9]

    Bloch, J

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

    2008

  10. [10]

    P. N. Ma, S. Pilati, M. Troyer, and X. Dai, Nature Phys 8, 601 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    Pilati, I

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

    2014

  12. [12]

    Z¨ urn, A

    G. Z¨ urn, A. N. Wenz, S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 175302 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, S. Murmann, I. Brouzos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Science342, 457 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Murmann, F

    S. Murmann, F. Deuretzbacher, G. Z¨ urn, J. Bjerlin, S. M. Reimann, L. Santos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 215301 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Pauli, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik31, 765 (1925)

    W. Pauli, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik31, 765 (1925)

    1925

  16. [16]

    Sorlin and M

    O. Sorlin and M. G. Porquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.61, 602 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    R. V. F. Janssens, Nature459, 1069 (2009)

    2009

  18. [18]

    Wienholtz, D

    F. Wienholtz, D. Beck, K. Blaum, C. Borgmann, M. Breitenfeldt, R. B. Cakirli, S. George, F. Her- furth, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V. Manea, J. Men´ endez, D. Neidherr, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, A. Schwenk, J. Simonis, J. Stanja, R. N. Wolf, and K. Zuber, Nature498, 346 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, H. Baba, N. Fukuda, S. Go, M. Honma, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y. Shiga, P.-A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, T. Sumikama, H. Suzuki, R. Taniuchi, Y. Utsuno, J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, and K. Yoneda, Nature 502, 207 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    C. R. Ding, C. C. Wang, J. M. Yao, H. Hergert, H. Z. Liang, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 052501 (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    G. C. Strinati, P. Pieri, G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, and M. Ur- ban, Phys. Rep.738, 1 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Ohashi, H

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

    2020

  23. [23]

    Gandolfi, A

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

    2015

  24. [24]

    H. N. Liu, A. Obertelli, P. Doornenbal, C. A. Bertulani, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, 8 T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, R. Stroberg, N. Achouri, H. Baba, F. Browne, D. Calvet, F. Chˆ ateau, S. Chen, N. Chiga, A. Corsi, M. L. Cort´ es, A. Delbart, J.-M. Gheller, A. Giganon, A. Gillibert, C. Hilaire, T. Isobe, T. Kobayashi, Y. Kubota, V. Lapoux, T. Motobay...

    2019

  25. [25]

    Thibault, R

    C. Thibault, R. Klapisch, C. Rigaud, A. M. Poskanzer, R. Prieels, L. Lessard, and W. Reisdorf, Phys. Rev. C 12, 644 (1975)

    1975

  26. [26]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ut- suno, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Hagen, M

    G. Hagen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, G. R. Jansen, R. Machleidt, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 242501 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    Otsuka, R

    T. Otsuka, R. Fujimoto, Y. Utsuno, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 082502 (2001)

    2001

  29. [29]

    Stanoiu, F

    M. Stanoiu, F. Azaiez, Zs. Dombr´ adi, O. Sorlin, B. A. Brown, M. Belleguic, D. Sohler, M. G. Saint Laurent, M. J. Lopez-Jimenez, Y. E. Penionzhkevich, G. Sletten, N. L. Achouri, J. C. Ang´ elique, F. Becker, C. Borcea, C. Bourgeois, A. Bracco, J. M. Daugas, Z. Dlouh´ y, C. Donzaud, J. Duprat, Zs. F¨ ul¨ op, D. Guillemaud- Mueller, S. Gr´ evy, F. Ibrahim,...

    2004

  30. [30]

    Kanungo, C

    R. Kanungo, C. Nociforo, A. Prochazka, T. Aumann, D. Boutin, D. Cortina-Gil, B. Davids, M. Diakaki, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, R. Gernh¨ auser, J. Gerl, R. Janik, B. Jonson, B. Kindler, R. Kn¨ obel, R. Kr¨ ucken, M. Lantz, H. Lenske, Y. Litvinov, B. Lommel, K. Mahata, P. Maier- beck, A. Musumarra, T. Nilsson, T. Otsuka, C. Perro, C. Scheidenberger, B. Sitar,...

    2009

  31. [31]

    Nowacki, A

    F. Nowacki, A. Obertelli, and A. Poves, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103866 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Mollaebrahimi, C

    A. Mollaebrahimi, C. Walls, T. Dickel, T. Miyagi, A. Sieverding, C. Andreoiu, J. Ash, B. Ashrafkhani, I. Belosevic, J. Bergman, C. Brown, T. Brunner, J. Car- dona, L. Egoriti, G. Gelinas, G. Gwinner, Z. Hock- enbery, J. D. Holt, A. Jacobs, S. Kakkar, B. Kootte, J. Lassen, E. M. Lykiardopoulou, S. Malbrunot- Ettenauer, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, S. F. Paul, W....

    2025

  33. [33]

    B. A. Brown, A. Gade, S. R. Stroberg, J. E. Escher, K. Fossez, P. Giuliani, C. R. Hoffman, W. Nazarewicz, C.-Y. Seng, A. Sorensen, N. Vassh, D. Bazin, K. W. Brown, M. A. Caprio, H. Crawford, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, K. Godbey, R. Grzywacz, L. Hlophe, J. W. Holt, H. Iwasaki, D. Lee, S. M. Lenzi, S. Liddick, R. Lubna, A. O. Macchiave...

    2025

  34. [34]

    D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 607 (2003)

    2003

  35. [35]

    Gandolfi, G

    S. Gandolfi, G. Palkanoglou, J. Carlson, A. Gezerlis, and K. E. Schmidt, Condens. Matter7, 19 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    D. Ding, A. Rios, H. Dussan, W. H. Dickhoff, S. J. Witte, A. Carbone, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C94, 025802 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Evidence for Multimodal Superfluidity of Neutrons,

    Y.-Z. Ma, G. Palkanoglou, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, G. Given, A. Hicks, D. Lee, K. E. Schmidt, and J. Yu, “Evidence for Multimodal Superfluidity of Neutrons,” (2026), arXiv:2602.17611 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A55(2019), 10.1140/epja/i2019-12863-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12863-6 2019

  39. [39]

    Watanabe and C

    G. Watanabe and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 062701 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.155, 623 (2004)

    2004

  41. [41]

    Litvinova, Phys

    E. Litvinova, Phys. Rev. C85, 021303 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, T. R. Werner, J. F. Berger, C. R. Chinn, and J. Decharg´ e, Phys. Rev. C 53, 2809 (1996)

    1996

  43. [43]

    Baroni, A

    S. Baroni, A. O. Macchiavelli, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C81, 064308 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    Inter- play between Nuclear Shell Structure and Pairing around Doubly Magic$ˆ{132}$Sn,

    R. Simpson, G. Palkanoglou, E. Brisley, J. Cardona, A. Czihaly, S. Kakkar, M. Simonov, E. Taylor, C. Walls, P. Weligampola, C. Chambers, F. M. Millan, A. Mol- laebrahimi, D. Ray, A. Weaver, J. Yu, I. Dillman, A. Gezerlis, G. Gwinner, A. Machiavelli, S. Malbrunot- Ettenauer, M. P. Reiter, and A. A. Kwiatkowski, “Inter- play between Nuclear Shell Structure ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Ra- jagopal, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  46. [46]

    Carlson, S

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

    2012

  47. [47]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Carlson, S.-Y

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

    2003

  49. [49]

    Gezerlis, S

    A. Gezerlis, S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 060403 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    Gezerlis and J

    A. Gezerlis and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C81, 025803 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    Gandolfi, K

    S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. A83, 041601 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

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

    2011

  53. [53]

    Madeira, S

    L. Madeira, S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and V. S. Bag- nato, Phys. Rev. C100, 014001 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Madeira, T

    L. Madeira, T. Frederico, S. Gandolfi, L. Tomio, and M. T. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. A104, 033301 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Curry, J

    R. Curry, J. E. Lynn, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Gezerlis, 9 Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042021 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Gandolfi, R

    S. Gandolfi, R. Curry, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043320 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, U. van Kolck, and S. A. Vitiello, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 223002 (2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    S. Y. Chang and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. A76, 021603 (2007)

    2007

  59. [59]

    Carlson and S

    J. Carlson and S. Gandolfi, Phys. Rev. A90, 011601 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    Sorella, Phys

    S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B64, 024512 (2001)

    2001

  61. [61]

    Gandolfi, J

    S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, and S. C. Pieper, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 012501 (2011)

    2011

  62. [62]

    Palkanoglou, F

    G. Palkanoglou, F. K. Diakonos, and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. C102, 064324 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    Duguet, B

    T. Duguet, B. Bally, and A. Tichai, Phys. Rev. C102, 054320 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    Schirotzek, Y.-i

    A. Schirotzek, Y.-i. Shin, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ket- terle, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 140403 (2008)

    2008

  65. [65]

    Haussmann and W

    R. Haussmann and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A78, 063602 (2008)

    2008

  66. [66]

    The odd fermion at the edge: Odd-even staggering in the trapped, unitary Fermi gas,

    S. R. Beane, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert, “The odd fermion at the edge: Odd-even staggering in the trapped, unitary Fermi gas,” (2026), arXiv:2606.26225 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026