Superconductivity of the FeSe/SrTiO3 Interface in the View of BCS-BEC Crossover

Bing Liu; Fang Yang; Guangyao Miao; Jiandong Guo; Jiaqi Guan; Shuyuan Zhang; Weihua Wang; Xiaofeng Xu; Xuetao Zhu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Superconductivity of the FeSe/SrTiO3 Interface in the View of BCS-BEC Crossover

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 single layer of FeSe on SrTiO3 sits closer to the BCS-BEC unitary point than any other FeSe-based superconductor, putting a solid-state interface in the regime of strongest many-body pairing.

desk verdict A clean phenomenological synthesis placing monolayer FeSe/STO near the BCS-BEC crossover, with a new but not conclusive TCNQ hole-doping STS experiment; the main soft spot is the validity of the 3D cold-atom mapping to a quasi-2D lattice. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11126 v1 pith:SOQUFUVK submitted 2019-08-29 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shuyuan Zhang , Guangyao Miao , Jiaqi Guan , Xiaofeng Xu , Bing Liu , Fang Yang , Weihua Wang , Xuetao Zhu

show 1 more author

Jiandong Guo

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords BCS-BECcrossoverFeSe/SrTiO3interfacesingle-layerSeunitarypointpreformedelectronpairspseudogapmolecularholedopinginterfacialsuperconductivity

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 argues that the BCS-BEC crossover, developed for ultracold atoms, can be used to organize FeSe-based superconductors by two experimentally accessible ratios: the superconducting gap divided by the Fermi energy, $\Delta/E_F$, and the critical temperature divided by the Fermi temperature, $T_C/T_F$. On that diagram, a single layer of FeSe on SrTiO3 (1uc-FeSe/STO) sits closest to the unitary point, where many-body pairing effects are strongest, with $\Delta/E_F \approx 0.36$ and $T_C/T_F \approx 0.1$. The authors also report that depositing TCNQ molecules to remove electrons lowers the Fermi energy from 56 to 37 meV while the gap size stays roughly unchanged, which they read as a move toward the preformed-pair (pseudogap) side of the crossover. A sympathetic reader would care because it makes a single oxide interface a tunable solid-state platform for studying strong pairing, normally accessible mainly in cold atomic gases.

What carries the argument

The working device is the BCS-BEC phase diagram drawn in $\Delta/E_F$--$T_C/T_F$ coordinates. The authors rely on a monotonic one-to-one mapping between $\Delta/E_F$ and $k_F\xi_{\mathrm{pair}}$ (the Fermi momentum times the pair size), so each material gets a coordinate without needing a direct measurement of the scattering length. The unitary point is calibrated by cold-atom experiments: $\Delta/E_F \approx 0.44$ and $T_C/T_F \approx 0.167$. They add the pairing-temperature curve $T_{\mathrm{pair}}/T_F$, whose regime above $T_C/T_F$ defines preformed pairs or pseudogap, and use local scanning-tunneling spectra near TCNQ molecules as a probe of that regime. The machinery's work is to convert published ARPES, STM/STS, and transport numbers for FeSe-derived superconductors into a single map that exposes how substrates, doping, and boson energies move a material through the crossover.

What would settle it

Measure the superconducting coherence length $\xi_{\mathrm{pair}}$ of 1uc-FeSe/STO directly, for example from the upper critical field or from fluctuation diamagnetism, and compute $k_F\xi_{\mathrm{pair}}$ with the ARPES Fermi momentum. If $k_F\xi_{\mathrm{pair}}$ is far from 1 while $\Delta/E_F$ stays near 0.36, then the claimed one-to-one mapping between the two ratios is not valid for this system and the unitary-point placement collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the superconductivity at the interface between single-layer FeSe and SrTiO3 is located closer to the BCS-BEC crossover unitary than other doped FeSe-based materials. Using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) values $E_F = 56$ meV and $\Delta = 20$ meV, with $T_C \approx 65$ K, the paper places 1uc-FeSe/STO at $\Delta/E_F \approx 0.36$ and $T_C/T_F \approx 0.1$, next to the unitary reference of $\Delta/E_F \approx 0.44$ and $T_C/T_F \approx 0.167$. It explains this position as the result of interface charge transfer and of an extra bosonic pairing glue, the 97 meV SrTiO3 optical phonon, cooperating with FeSe magnetic excitations. The same logic places bulk FeSe's electron pocket past the unitary point toward BEC, while electron-doped (LiFe)OHFeSe and K0.8FeSe move toward BCS. In the TCNQ hole-doping experiment, the reduced Fermi energy moves the system toward the BEC side, and the persistent gap with suppressed coherence peaks is proposed as the spectral signature of pre-paired electrons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured Fermi energy and gap of the single electron pocket give a true $\Delta/E_F$, and that this ratio maps one-to-one onto $k_F\xi_{\mathrm{pair}}$ in the same way as in the three-dimensional cold-atom gas, so that the placement on the diagram is meaningful for this nearly two-dimensional crystal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the placement is correct, 1uc-FeSe/STO is one of the closest solid-state realizations of the unitary Fermi regime, where pairing fluctuations dominate and normal Fermi-liquid descriptions break down.
Hole doping by molecular adsorbates should act as a switch toward the BEC side: the Fermi energy drops, the gap persists, and coherence peaks vanish, indicating preformed pairs rather than a weakened superconductor.
Choosing oxide substrates with optical phonon energies below, near, or above the FeSe Fermi energy should move the interface through the crossover, giving a materials-design route to tune pairing strength.
The FeSe family becomes a rare condensed-matter platform in which one can traverse a large section of the BCS-BEC diagram by doping and substrate engineering.
The observed positive correlation between the boson energy ratio and $\Delta/E_F$ suggests that the pairing glue's energy scale, not just electron density, helps set the crossover coordinate.

Reading between the lines

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

Testable extension: measure $T_C$ of TCNQ-doped 1uc-FeSe/STO directly, for instance with superconducting scanning tunneling microscopy at lower temperatures or with transport on gated devices; if the gap survives while $T_C$ drops sharply, the preformed-pair assignment would be strongly supported.
If the same two-ratio mapping is assumed, the screening could be applied to other monolayer superconductors on polar substrates to identify new candidates for strong-pairing physics.
Because the unitary calibrations come from a three-dimensional atomic gas, a lattice-specific BCS-BEC calculation could shift the absolute coordinates; the paper's ordering of materials is the part most likely to survive such a shift.
The phonon-energy correlation suggests a design rule the paper leaves implicit: substrates with phonon energy below the Fermi energy should give more BCS-like interfaces, and substrates with phonon energy above it should push toward BEC; growing the same FeSe layer on the listed oxides would test that rule.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper is a clean, honest piece of phenomenology: it collects the published Δ, EF, TC values for FeSe-based superconductors, puts them on a Δ/EF vs TC/TF diagram, and argues that monolayer FeSe/SrTiO3 sits closer to the BCS-BEC unitary point than the others. It also adds a new STS experiment—TCNQ molecules hole-dope the surface, the gap remains but coherence peaks wash out near the molecules—and the authors interpret that as a possible pre-pairing signature. That is genuinely new and worth discussing.

What the paper does well: it is transparent about its inputs, it does not fit parameters, and it is careful to say the pseudogap interpretation is not proven and in-situ TC is missing. The compilation of parameters in the table is useful. The correlation between boson energy and position on the diagram is admittedly speculative, and they say so.

The soft spot is the mapping. The entire placement on the BCS-BEC diagram relies on the assumption that Δ/EF is in one-to-one monotonic correspondence with kFξpair, and that the 3D cold-atom calibrations (Δ/EF ~ 0.44, TC/TF ~ 0.167 at unitarity) carry over to a quasi-2D lattice with strong band renormalization. The supplementary derives the mapping only from 3D continuum formulas; the text asserts the quasi-2D extension is 'still valid' rather than showing it. So the quantitative distance to the unitary point is not established—if the mapping shifts, Δ/EF = 0.36 might not mean kFξpair close to 1. That said, the comparative statement among FeSe-based materials is more robust, because the same mapping is applied to all of them. The TCNQ experiment is a separate, softer claim: unchanged gap with vanishing coherence peaks could also come from local disorder or the molecule's tunneling channel, and the authors acknowledge this.

Net: this is a solid contribution for the FeSe and BCS-BEC crossover community, not a breakthrough. The placement is plausible and the experimental observation is interesting but not conclusive. I'd send it to a serious referee, with the request that the authors either provide some justification for the quasi-2D unitary calibration or soften the 'closest to the unitary point' wording to 'closest in this phenomenological mapping.' The TCNQ data can stay as reported, but the pre-pairing interpretation should be clearly labeled as speculative, which it already is.

I would not cite it as a definitive placement, but I would reference the parameter compilation. A good paper to bring to a reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper places FeSe-based superconductors on a BCS-BEC crossover phase diagram parameterized by Δ/EF and TC/TF, using literature values for Fermi energy, superconducting gap, and critical temperature. The central claims are that the single-layer FeSe/SrTiO3 interface (1uc-FeSe/STO) sits closer to the unitary point (Δ/EF≈0.36, TC/TF≈0.1) than other FeSe-derived superconductors, and that hole doping by TCNQ molecules drives the interface toward a pre-paired-electron (pseudogap) regime, based on STS showing loss of coherence peaks with an unchanged gap. The paper also proposes that matching the substrate optical-phonon energy to EF can tune the crossover position, and lists candidate oxide substrates for this purpose.

Significance. If the placement is correct, the paper offers a tunable solid-state platform for studying strong many-body pairing and a concrete, falsifiable design rule relating substrate phonon energy to the BCS-BEC crossover position. A strength of the analysis is that the phase-diagram positions are computed from externally measured EF, Δ, and TC values with no fitted parameters, and the authors are appropriately cautious in labeling the TCNQ result as 'possible' pre-pairing and in noting that in situ TC is unavailable. The significance of the paper is, however, conditional on the validity of the quasi-2D mapping from Δ/EF to kFξpair and on the uniqueness of the STS interpretation.

major comments (3)

[Section 1 and SM I] The central placement of 1uc-FeSe/STO at Δ/EF≈0.36 and TC/TF≈0.1 relies on two unproven transfers: the monotonic one-to-one mapping between Δ/EF and 1/(kFa), which SM I derives only from 3D continuum BCS/BEC formulas, and the cold-atom unitary calibrations Δ/EF≈0.44 and TC/TF≈0.167. The statement that the phase diagram 'is still valid' for quasi-2D lattice systems is an assertion, not a derivation; BKT physics and the discrete lattice change the crossover quantitatively. Moreover, EF=56 meV for 1uc-FeSe/STO is the ARPES quasiparticle band-bottom energy and is not the non-interacting Fermi energy of the cold-atom mapping. Since this mapping is load-bearing for the headline claim, please supply a derivation or numerical validation for the 2D lattice case with renormalized bands, or explicitly frame the placement as a qualitative estimate with a quantified uncertainty.
[Table SI and Fig. 2] The values in Table SI are internally inconsistent with the text. For 1uc-FeSe/STO, the table lists kFξpair=4.20 (with ξpair replaced by the phase coherence length), which is not consistent with the claim of proximity to the unitary point kFξpair=1. For FeSe-e, the table gives kFξpair=3.25, while the main text states that FeSe-e is 'over the unitary point towards the BEC limit.' These contradictions make it unclear whether kFξpair or Δ/EF is intended to define proximity to the unitary point. Please reconcile the table with the text, or remove the kFξpair column if it is not used quantitatively.
[Section 3 and Fig. 3(c)] The interpretation of the TCNQ hole-doping experiment as evidence for pre-formed electron pairs is not uniquely supported by the data. The disappearance of coherence peaks with an unchanged gap as the tip approaches a molecule is also compatible with local suppression of superconductivity, disorder, or molecular tunneling effects, and the paper explicitly states that in situ TC is unavailable. Without temperature-dependent STS or a measurement of the pairing temperature Tpair, the pre-pairing conclusion remains a conjecture. In addition, the claim that EF decreases from 56 to 37 meV at point #5 is not demonstrated by the STS data shown; please state how this EF shift is obtained and its uncertainty, or soften the conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Table SI] No uncertainties are reported for Δ/EF and TC/TF; because the comparative claim rests on small differences (0.36 vs 0.44 for Δ/EF and 0.1 vs 0.167 for TC/TF), error propagation should be provided.
[SM I] The displayed equations for the BCS and BEC limits of Δ/EF are garbled in the text and should be typeset as readable formulas; the current rendering makes the derivation difficult to follow.
[Table SI] The paper should define TF consistently: for multi-band or strongly renormalized systems, the relation TF=EF/kB may not yield the same value as a band-structure-based TF, and the convention used for each compound should be stated explicitly.
[Fig. 2(b)] The dashed curve is described as schematic, but since data points are plotted on the same axes, a reader may interpret it as a theoretical TC/TF curve; please state explicitly that it is only a guide to the eye.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BCS-BEC placement uses external measured inputs and an external theoretical mapping; self-citations are experimental inputs, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: measured EF, Δ, and TC values from ARPES/STS experiments (including the authors' prior measurements) are placed onto a BCS-BEC phase diagram whose Δ/EF ↔ kFξpair mapping is imported from BCS/BEC-limit theory and cold-atom unitary calibrations (Refs 4, 5, 9, 10, 57, 58). No parameter is fitted to produce the diagram positions, and the TCNQ hole-doping experiment is a new STS observation whose pseudogap interpretation the authors explicitly condition on future in-situ TC measurement. The authors' self-citations (Refs 30–33, 42) supply measured band parameters, interface phonon data, and STM results; they do not provide a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that already contains the conclusion, so they are not load-bearing self-citations. The asserted validity of the quasi-2D mapping and the transfer of the 3D unitary calibration are assumptions, and the SM's own kFξpair value of 4.2 for 1uc-FeSe/STO would conflict with the Δ/EF-based placement, but these are correctness or consistency risks, not instances where a prediction reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central diagram analysis imports the BCS-BEC crossover formalism and cold-atom calibrations as axioms; no free parameters are fitted to the FeSe data. The pre-pairing interpretation is an ad hoc hypothesis introduced to explain the TCNQ STS spectra, with the paper explicitly calling for future in situ TC measurements.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The BCS-BEC crossover phase diagram, calibrated by cold-atom experiments, applies to quasi-2D lattice superconductors; delta/EF is a monotonic proxy for kF*xi_pair.
Main text and SM Section I: 'there is the monotonic one-to-one mapping between delta/EF and kF*xi_pair' and 'the phase diagram discussion based on the Fermi momentum and scattering length is still valid' for quasi-2D systems.
domain assumption The unitary point is fixed by 6Li measurements at kF*xi_pair = 1 with delta/EF = 0.44 and TC/TF = 0.167.
Main text: 'At the unitary point, TC/TF ~ 0.167 and delta/EF ~ 0.44 (as measured by 6Li atom gas experimentally)'. The analysis assumes these reference values are transferable to electron systems in solids.
domain assumption The pair coherence length xi_pair can be approximated by the phase coherence length xi_phase.
SM Section III: 'The pair size xi_pair is roughly replaced by the phase coherent length xi_phase, because in BCS regime the two length is only differed by a factor 3/2'.
domain assumption For 1uc-FeSe/STO, EF = 56 meV and delta = 20 meV describe the single electron pocket measured by ARPES.
Main text: 'with TC ~ 65 K, delta ~ 20 meV, EF ~ 56 meV [27,30,33,41]'. The analysis uses this single-band parametrization to place the system on the diagram.
ad hoc to paper A superconducting gap with suppressed coherence peaks and unchanged size under hole doping is a spectral signature of preformed electron pairs.
Main text, Fig. 3 discussion: 'The observed unchanged gap with suppressed coherent peak may be related to the spectral signature of the electron pre-pairing.' This interpretation is asserted to explain the STS data; the paper itself notes more evidence is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconductivity of the FeSe/SrTiO3 Interface in the View of BCS-BEC Crossover." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SOQUFUVK

@misc{pith2026190811126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconductivity of the FeSe/SrTiO3 Interface in the View of BCS-BEC Crossover},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SOQUFUVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11126}
}

read the original abstract

In paired Fermi systems, strong many-body effects exhibit in the crossover regime between the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) and the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) limits. The concept of the BCS-BEC crossover, which is studied intensively in the research field of cold atoms, has been extended to condensed matters. Here, by analyzing the typical superconductors within the BCS-BEC phase diagram, we find that FeSe-based superconductors are prone to shift their positions in the BCS-BEC crossover regime by charge doping or substrate substitution, since their Fermi energies and the superconducting gap sizes are comparable. Especially at the interface of a single-layer FeSe on SrTiO3 substrate, the superconductivity is relocated closer to the crossover unitary than other doped FeSe-based materials, indicating that the pairing interaction is effectively modulated. We further show that hole-doping can drive the interfacial system into the phase with possible pre-paired electrons, demonstrating its flexible tunability within the BCS-BEC crossover regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11126 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

[1]

Bardeen, L

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

1957
[2]

Bardeen, L

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

1957
[3]

Cho, Science 332, 190 (2011)

A. Cho, Science 332, 190 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

Randeria and E

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

2014
[5]

W. Z. M. Randeria, M. Zwierlein, The BCS–BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), p.^pp. 1‐23

work page 2012
[6]

J. P. Gaebler, J. T. Stewart, T. E. Drake, D. S. Jin, A. Pe rali, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Nat. Phys. 6, 569 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

2010
[8]

See Supplemental Material at

Show all 61 references

[9]

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

2012
[10]

Schirotzek, Y.‐i

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

2008
[11]

Y. J. Uemura, Physica C: Superconductivity 282‐287, 194 (1997)

1997
[12]

Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, and K. Levin, Physics Reports 412, 1 (2005)

2005
[13]

Y. J. Uemura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2317 (1989)

1989
[14]

Y. J. Uemura, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, S4515 (2004)

2004
[15]

Y. J. Uemura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2665 (1991)

1991
[16]

Yang and D

Y.‐f. Yang and D. Pines, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 18178 (2014)

2014
[17]

Kasahara et al., Proc

S. Kasahara et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 16309 (2014)

2014
[18]

Watashige et al., Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 86, 014707 (2016)

T. Watashige et al., Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 86, 014707 (2016)

2016
[19]

Lubashevsky, E

Y. Lubashevsky, E. Lahoud, K . Chashka, D. Podolsky, and A. Kanigel, Nat. Phys. 8, 309 (2012)

2012
[20]

Okazaki et al., Scientific Reports 4, 4109 (2014)

K. Okazaki et al., Scientific Reports 4, 4109 (2014)

2014
[21]

Rinott, K

S. Rinott, K. B. Chashka, A. Ribak, E. D. L. Rienks, A. Taleb‐Ibrahimi, P. Le Fevre, F. Bertran, M. Randeria, and A. Kanigel, Science Advances 3, e1602372 (2017)

2017
[22]

Chubukov, Annu

A. Chubukov, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 57 (2012)

2012
[23]

Hanaguri, S

T. Hanaguri, S. Kasahara, J. Böker, I. Eremin, T. Shibauch i, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 077001 (2019)

2019
[24]

Takahashi, F

H. Takahashi, F. Nabeshima, R. Ogawa, E. Ohmichi, H. Ohta, and A. Maeda, Phys. Rev. B 99, 060503 (2019)

2019
[25]

Wang et al., Chin

Q.‐Y. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 037402 (2012)

2012
[26]

Zhang et al., Chin

W.‐H. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 31, 017401 (2014)

2014
[27]

Liu et al., Nat

D. Liu et al., Nat. Commun. 3, 931 (2012)

2012
[28]

Zhang et al., Nat

H. Zhang et al., Nat. Commun. 8, 214 (2017)

2017
[29]

W. W. Zhao, M. D. Li, C. Z. Chang, J. Jiang, L. J. Wu, C. X. Liu, J. S. Moodera, Y. M. Zhu, and M. H. W. Chan, Science Advances 4, eaao2682 (2018). 15

2018
[30]

J. J. Lee et al., Nature 515, 245 (2014)

2014
[31]

Zhang et al., Phys

S. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. B 94, 081116 (2016)

2016
[32]

Zhang et al., Phys

S. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. B 97, 035408 (2018)

2018
[33]

Zhang et al., Phys

S. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 066802 (2019)

2019
[34]

Micnas and B

R. Micnas and B. Tobijaszewska, Journal of Physics Condens ed Matter 14, 9631 (2002)

2002
[35]

Nishida and D

Y. Nishida and D. T. Son, in The BCS‐BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, edited by W. Zwerger (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 233

2012
[36]

X. H. Niu et al., Phys. Rev. B 92, 060504 (2015)

2015
[37]

Zhang et al., Nat Mater 10, 273 (2011)

Y. Zhang et al., Nat Mater 10, 273 (2011)

2011
[38]

0 1 6 Ce2PdIn8 [ 1 6 ] - - - - - - - - 0

- - - 14.6 45.0 0.32 63 522 0.121 Cuprates 123 [11,13,15] - - - - - - 54 1232 0.044 - - - - - - 62 1325 0.047 - - - - - - 69 1478 0.047 - - - - - - 75 1740 0.043 - - - - - - 90 1977 0.045 - - - - - - 87 2204 0.040 - - - - - - 79 2741 0.029 - - - - - - 91 2947 0.031 - - - - - -...

1977
[39]

S. N. Rebec, T. Jia, C. Zhang, M. Hashimoto, D. H. Lu, R. G. Moore, and Z. X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 067002 (2017)

2017
[40]

Ding, Y.‐F

H. Ding, Y.‐F. Lv, K. Zhao, W.‐L. Wang, L. Wang, C.‐L. Song, X. Chen, X.‐C. Ma, and Q.‐K. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 067001 (2016)

2016
[41]

Peng et al., Nat

R. Peng et al., Nat. Commun. 5, 5044 (2014)

2014
[42]

Tan et al., Nat

S. Tan et al., Nat. Mater. 12, 634 (2013)

2013
[43]

Guan et al., Phys

J. Guan et al., Phys. Rev. B 95, 205405 (2017)

2017
[44]

Wang et al., Nat

Q. Wang et al., Nat. Mater. 15, 159 (2015)

2015
[45]

Pan et al., Nat

B. Pan et al., Nat. Commun. 8, 123 (2017)

2017
[46]

Friemel, W

G. Friemel, W. P. Liu, E. A. Goremychkin, Y. Liu, J. T. Park, O. Sobolev, C. T. Lin, B. Keimer, and D. S. Inosov, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 99, 67004 (2012)

2012
[47]

Lee, Annu

D.‐H. Lee, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9, 261 (2018)

2018
[48]

C. Liu, Z. Wang, S. Ye, C. Chen, Y. Liu, Q. Wang, Q.‐H. Wa ng, and J. Wang, Nano Lett. 19, 3464 (2019)

2019
[49]

J. L. Guyaux, P. Lambin, and P. A. Thiry, Progress in Surf ace Science 74, 319 (2003)

2003
[50]

Lambin, P

P. Lambin, P. Senet, and A. A. Lucas, Phys. Rev. B 44, 6416 (1991)

1991
[51]

K. L. Kostov, S. Polzin, S. K. Saha, O. Brovko, V. Stepany uk, and W. Widdra, Phys. Rev. B 87, 235416 (2013)

2013
[52]

Delugas, V

P. Delugas, V. Fiorentini, A. Filippetti, and G. Pourtois, Phys. Rev. B 75, 115126 (2007)

2007
[53]

Oshima, T

C. Oshima, T. Aizawa, R. Souda, and Y. Ishizawa, Solid Sta te Commun. 73, 731 (1990)

1990
[54]

A. S. Barker, Phys. Rev. 145, 391 (1966)

1966
[55]

Uwe and T

H. Uwe and T. Sakudo, Phys. Rev. B 15, 337 (1977)

1977
[56]

I. R. Beattie and T. R. Gilson, Journal of the Chemical So ciety A: Inorganic, Physical, Theoretical, 2322 (1969)

1969
[57]

Zhou and D

B. Zhou and D. He, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 39, 1475 (2008)

2008
[58]

G. C. Strinati, in The BCS‐BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, edited by W. Zwerger (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 99

2012
[59]

Heiselberg, in The BCS‐BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, edited by W

H. Heiselberg, in The BCS‐BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, edited by W. Zwerger (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 49

2012
[60]

Y. J. Yan et al., Phys. Rev. B 94, 134502 (2016)

2016
[61]

He et al., Nat Mater 12, 605 (2013)

S. He et al., Nat Mater 12, 605 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bardeen, L

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

1957

[2] [2]

Bardeen, L

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

1957

[3] [3]

Cho, Science 332, 190 (2011)

A. Cho, Science 332, 190 (2011)

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Randeria and E

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

2014

[5] [5]

W. Z. M. Randeria, M. Zwierlein, The BCS–BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), p.^pp. 1‐23

work page 2012

[6] [6]

J. P. Gaebler, J. T. Stewart, T. E. Drake, D. S. Jin, A. Pe rali, P. Pieri, and G. C. Strinati, Nat. Phys. 6, 569 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

2010

[8] [8]

See Supplemental Material at