Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lianyi He1 , Haifeng Lu2 , Gaoqing Cao3 , Hui Hu4 , and Xia-Ji Liu4
1 Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
2 Department of Applied Physics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, China
3 Department of Physics and Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
4 Centre for Quantum and Optical Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne 3122, Australia
(Dated: August 17, 2015)
arXiv:1506.07156v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 14 Aug 2015
We present a theoretical study of the ground state of the BCS-BEC crossover in dilute two-dimensional Fermi
gases. While the mean-field theory provides a simple and analytical equation of state, the pressure is equal to
that of a noninteracting Fermi gas in the entire BCS-BEC crossover, which is not consistent with the features of
a weakly interacting Bose condensate in the BEC limit and a weakly interacting Fermi liquid in the BCS limit.
The inadequacy of the 2D mean-field theory indicates that the quantum fluctuations are much more pronounced
than those in 3D. In this work, we show that the inclusion of the Gaussian quantum fluctuations naturally
recovers the above features in both the BEC and the BCS limits. In the BEC limit, the missing logarithmic
dependence on the boson chemical potential is recovered by the quantum fluctuations. Near the quantum phase
transition from the vacuum to the BEC phase, we compare our equation of state with the known grand canonical
equation of state of 2D Bose gases and determine the ratio of the composite boson scattering length aB to the
fermion scattering length a2D . We find aB 0.56a2D , in good agreement with the exact four-body calculation.
We compare our equation of state in the BCS-BEC crossover with recent results from the quantum Monte Carlo
simulations and the experimental measurements and find good agreements.
with the quantum Monte Carlo results and the experimental II. HAMILTONIAN AND GRAND POTENTIAL
measurements if the Gaussian pair fluctuations are taken into
account [1618]. In contrast, the mean-field theory for 2D We consider a spin-1/2 (two-component) Fermi gas in two
Fermi gases does not predict a weakly interacting 2D Bose spatial dimensions with a short-ranged s-wave attractive inter-
condensate in the strong attraction limit [33, 34]. The cou- action between the unlike spins. In the dilute limit, the inter-
pling constant between the composite bosons is predicted to action potential can be safely modeled by a contact interac-
be energy independent, which arises from the inadequacy of tion. The grand canonical Hamiltonian density of the system
the Born approximation for four-body scattering in 2D. As a is given by
result, the 2D mean-field theory predicts that the pressure of a X
homogeneous 2D Fermi gas is equal to that of a noninteract- H= (r)H0 (r) U (r) (r) (r) (r), (1)
ing Fermi gas in the entire BCS-BEC crossover. However, re- =,
cent experimental measurements [37, 41] and quantum Monte
Carlo simulations [4648] show that the pressure in the strong where (r) and (r) represent the annihilation field opera-
attraction limit is vanishingly small in comparison to that of a tors for the two spin states of fermions, H0 = 2 /(2m) is
noninteracting Fermi gas, which is consistent with the picture the free single-particle Hamiltonian, with m being the fermion
that the system is a weakly interacting 2D Bose condensate. mass and being the chemical potential, and U > 0 de-
These results indicate that the 2D mean-field theory is not ad- notes the s-wave attractive interaction occurring between un-
equate even at the qualitative level, and quantum fluctuations like spins.
are much more important in 2D. The contact coupling U is convenient for performing the-
oretical derivations. However, it should be renormalized by
In analogy to the 3D case, we expect that the inclusion of using some physical quantities so that we can obtain finite re-
Gaussian pair fluctuations in 2D naturally recovers the feature sults in the many-body calculations. With the contact interac-
of the weakly interacting 2D Bose condensate in the strong tion U, the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the two-body T
attraction limit. This has been demonstrated recently by using matrix reads
the pole approximation for the Goldstone mode and the di- 1
mensional regularization for the untraviolet divergence, which T 2B (E) = U 1 (E), (2)
leads to an elegant derivation of the composite boson scatter- where E = k2 /m is the scattering energy in the center-of-mass
ing length [73]. However, the pole approximation is limited frame and the two-particle bubble function (E) is given by
in the strong attraction limit because of the use of the Bogoli-
ubov dispersion for the Goldstone mode. We also note that X 1
(E) = . (3)
the ultraviolet (UV) divergence arising from the pole approx- E + i 2k
k
imation can be naturally avoided in the full treatment of the
collective modes [1618]. In this work, we study the influ- Here R = 0+ and k = k2 /(2m). We use the notation
ence of quantum fluctuations on the EOS of 2D Fermi gases in d2 k/(2)2 throughout. The cost of the use of the
P
k
the entire BCS-BEC crossover. With the full EOS beyond the contact interaction is that the integral over k suffers from UV
pole approximation, we determine the ratio of the composite divergence. We regularize the UV divergence by introducing
boson scattering length aB to the fermion scattering length a2D a hard cutoff for |k|. For large we obtain
by comparing our EOS near the vacuum-BEC quantum phase
transition with the known grand canonical EOS of weakly in- m 2 m
(E) = ln + ln (E i) . (4)
teracting 2D Bose gases [7682]. We obtain aB 0.56a2D, in 4 m 4
good agreement with the exact four-body calculation [49] and Next we match the scattering amplitude f (k) = (4/m)T 2B(E)
the pole approximation treatment [73]. We also perform nu- to the known 2D s-wave scattering amplitude in the zero-
merical calculations for the canonical EOS of a homogeneous range limit, which is given by f (k) = 1/[ln(B /E) + i] [33,
2D Fermi gas in the BCS-BEC crossover. In addition to re- 34]. Here B is the binding energy of the two-body bound state
covering the weakly interacting Bose condensate in the strong which characterizes the attraction strength. Thus we obtain
attraction limit, we find that the Fermi liquid corrections [83
85] can also be recovered at sufficiently weak attraction. We 1 m 2 X 1
compare our EOS with the recent results from quantum Monte = ln = . (5)
U() 4 mB |k|< 2k + B
Carlo simulations and experimental measurements in the en-
tire BCS-BEC crossover and find good agreements. The above results should be understood in the large- limit.
After the renormalization of the bare coupling U through the
The paper is organized as follows. We set up our theoretical
physical binding energy B , the UV divergence in the many-
framework for 2D Fermi gases beyond mean field in Sec. II.
body calculations can be eliminated and we can set to
We study the strong attraction limit and determine the com-
obtain the final finite results.
posite boson scattering length in Sec. III. We present our the-
In the imaginary-time functional path integral formalism,
oretical predictions for the EOS in the BCS-BEC crossover
the partition function at temperature T is
and compare our results with the quantum Monte Carlo data Z
and experimental measurements in Sec. IV. We summarize in
Sec. V. The natural units ~ = kB = 1 are used throughout. Z = [d][d] exp S[, ] , (6)
3
B. Gaussian pair fluctuation theory where the phase shifts are defined as M (, q) =
Im ln det M( + i, q), 11 (, q) = Im ln M11 ( + i, q),
Now let us include the quantum fluctuations. We include and 22 (, q) = Im ln M22 ( + i, q).
the Gaussian fluctuations only and approximate the effective A crucial element of the Gaussian pair fluctuation (GPF)
action as Seff [, ] SMF + SGF [, ]. The advantage theory is that the order parameter should be determined by
of this Gaussian approximation is that the path integral over the extreme of the mean-field grand potential MF rather than
and can be carried out analytically. To evaluate the the full grand potential = MF + GF [16, 17]. Therefore,
quadratic term SGF [, ], we make the Fourier transforma- we still use the mean-field gap equation or the analytical re-
tion sult, (21). The advantages of the use of the mean-field gap
p X equation can be summarized as follows:
(x) = V (Q)eiql +iqr , (24) (i) The mean-field solution for the order parameter, (21), guar-
Q antees Goldstones theorem. The dispersion of the Goldstone
mode can be obtained by solving the equation
where Q = (iql , q), with ql = 2lT (l Z) being
P the P
boson
P
Matsubara frequency. We use the notation Q = T l q det M(, q) = 0 (31)
throughout. After some manipulations, SGF [, ] can be ex-
pressed in a compact form, for smaller than the two-particle continuum. The use of the
! mean-field solution, (21), for the order parameter ensures that
V X (Q) det M(0, 0) = 0. Therefore, the lightest collective mode is
SGF [, ] = (Q) (Q) M(Q) .(25)
2 Q (Q) gapless and has a linear dispersion at low momentum q. We
expect that the most important contribution from the quantum
The inverse boson propagator M(Q) is a 2 2 matrix. At fluctuations is the Goldstone mode fluctuation. The use of the
T = 0, its elements are analytically given by mean-field gap equation ensures that the Goldstone mode is
gapless and hence enables us to take into account correctly
M11 (Q) = M22 (Q) the contribution from the Goldstone mode.
u2k u2k+q 2k 2k+q
1 X (ii) The use of the mean-field solution, (21), maintains the fa-
= + ,
mous Silver Blaze property [86, 87] even if we consider the
iq E E
U k l k k+q iql + Ek + Ek+q
contributions from the quantum fluctuations. Even though the
M12 (Q) = M21 (Q) critical chemical potential c = B /2 for the vacuum-matter
X uk k uk+q k+q !
uk k uk+q k+q transition is obtained from the mean-field approximation, we
= . (26)
k
iql + Ek + Ek+q iql Ek Ek+q expect that it is exact because the minimal chemical potential
to create a bound state is exactly 2c = B . For < c and
Here the BCS distribution functions are defined as 2k = (1 at T = 0, the system stays in the vacuum phase with vanishing
k /Ek )/2 and u2k = 1 2k . Note that Eq. (5) should be used to pressure and density. This is known as the Silver Blaze prob-
eliminate the UV divergence. lem [86, 87]. Obviously, the mean-field EOS satisfies this
Considering the Gaussian fluctuations only, the partition property. Now we show that the Gaussian contribution GF
function is approximated as also satisfies this property. For < c , we have = 0 and
Z hence GF is given by
n o
Z exp (SMF ) [d][d] exp SGF [, ] . (27) X +
GF = ln M0 (iql , q)eiql 0 , (32)
Q
Carrying out the path integral over and , we obtain the
grand potential = MF + GF , where the contribution from where the pair susceptibility M0 (iql , q) in the vacuum phase
the Gaussian fluctuations can be formally expressed as is analytically given by
1X
!
GF = ln det M(Q). (28)
X 1 1
2 Q M0 (iql , q) = +
k
iql k+q/2 kq/2 2k + B
q2
However, this formal expression is divergent because the con- m iql + 4m 2
vergent factors are not appropriately considered. Considering = ln . (33)
4 B
the convergent factors leads to a finite result [16, 17]:
" # At T = 0, we obtain
1X M11 (Q) +
GF = ln det M(Q) eiql 0 . (29) XZ 0
2 Q M22 (Q) d
GF = 0 (, q), (34)
q
The Matsubara frequency sum can be converted to a standard
contour integral. At T = 0, we have where 0 (, q) = Im ln M0 ( + i, q). It is easy to show that
0 (, q) = 0 for < 0 in the vacuum phase < c . Therefore,
1 X 0 d
Z
GF =
M (, q) + 11 (, q) 22 (, q) ,(30) we have exactly GF = 0 for < c . Accordingly, the particle
2 q density also vanishes in the vacuum.
5
A(, q)C(, q) + 2 B(, q)D(, q) + 2F 2 (, q) C 2 (, q) + 2 D2 (, q)
XZ " #
d
GF () = ln 1 24 () + 8
() , (38)
q 0 2 A2 (, q) + 2 B2 (, q) A2 (, q) + 2 B2 (, q)
where we have used the fact that the integrand is real and even in . The functions A, B, C, D, and F are defined as
X" 1 1 1 1
!
(Ek+q/2 + k+q/2 )(Ekq/2 + kq/2 )
#
A(, q) = + ,
k
2k + B 4 Ek+q/2 Ekq/2 (Ek+q/2 + Ekq/2 )2 + 2
X 1 (Ek+q/2 + k+q/2 )(Ekq/2 + kq/2 )
B(, q) = ,
k
4E k+q/2 E kq/2 (Ek+q/2 + Ekq/2 )2 + 2
X1 !
1 1 1 1
C(, q) = + ,
k
4 Ek+q/2 Ekq/2 (Ek+q/2 + k+q/2 )(Ekq/2 + kq/2 ) (Ek+q/2 + Ekq/2 )2 + 2
X 1 1
D(, q) = 2 2
,
k
4E E (E
k+q/2 kq/2 k+q/2 + k+q/2 )(E kq/2 + kq/2 ) (E k+q/2 + E kq/2 ) +
X1 !
1 1 1
F(, q) = + 2 2
. (39)
k
4 E k+q/2 E kq/2 (E k+q/2 + E kq/2 ) +
Note that () is given by the mean-field solution, (21). The where the GF contribution is formally given by
BCS-type dispersions Ekq/2 in (39) are hence analytically
given by dGF ()
nGF () = . (43)
q d
Ekq/2 = (kq/2 )2 + B (2 + B )(2 + B ). (40)
Here d/d represents the full derivative with respect to ; i.e.,
The integrand in (38) vanishes in the vacuum < c and
hence the Silver Blaze property is automatically satisfied. dGF () GF GF d
Moreover, because we use the mean-field gap equation, (21), = + . (44)
d d
we can replace 1/(2k + B ) with 1/(2Ek) in the expression of
the function A(, q). Then we find that the integrand in (38) In 3D, it was shown that the second term is crucial to produce
diverges near (, q) = (0, 0), which indicates that the most im- in the BEC limit the composite boson scattering length aB =
portant contribution is from the low-energy Goldstone mode. 0.55a3D [16, 17], which is very close to the result aB = 0.6a3D
In summary, the grand canonical EOS in the GPF theory is from the exact four-body calculation [75]. It has been shown
given by that in 2D the second term is much more important than in
() = MF () + GF (). (41) 3D. Without this contribution, the fluctuation contribution to
the particle density, nGF (), is divergent [64, 88]. The full
The particle density n() reads
derivative leads to a convergent particle density and hence an
n() = nMF () + nGF (), (42) appropriate description of the BCS-BEC crossover.
6
III. STRONG COUPLING LIMIT: WEAKLY Here mB = 2m is the mass of the composite bosons. In the
INTERACTING 2D BOSE CONDENSATE mean-field theory, the boson-boson coupling gB is a constant,
A(x, y)C(x, y) + y2 B(x, y)D(x, y) + 2F 2 (x, y) 2 2 2
Z Z " #
2 4 C (x, y) + y D (x, y)
f () = dx dy ln 1 2 2 + . (57)
2 0 0 A2 (x, y) + y2 B2 (x, y) A2 (x, y) + y2 B2 (x, y)
d
Z 2 Z " ! #
1 1 1 1 (E+ + + )(E + )
A(x, y) = dz + ,
0 2 0 z + 1 4 E+ E (E+ + E )2 + y2
d
Z 2 Z
1 (E+ + + )(E + )
B(x, y) = dz 2 2
,
0 2 0 4E + E (E + + E ) + y
Z 2 Z !
d 1 1 1 1 1
C(x, y) = dz + 2 2
,
0 2 0 4 E + E (E + + + )(E + ) (E + + E ) + y
d
Z 2 Z
1 1
D(x, y) = dz ,
0 2 0 4E+ E (E+ + + )(E + ) (E+ + E )2 + y2
d 1 1
Z 2 Z !
1 1
F (x, y) = dz + , (58)
0 2 0 4 E+ E (E+ + E )2 + y2
where the dimensionless variables x, y, and z are defined as x = q2 /(4mB ), y = /B , and z = k2 /(mB ) and the notations
and E are given by
1 q
= z + x 2 xz cos + 1 , E = ( )2 + . (59)
2
We can show that f () is divergent at = 0. To this end, we mean-field theory already predicts a weakly interacting Bose
evaluate the functions A, B, C, D, and F at = 0, which is condensate in the strong coupling limit with a composite bo-
denoted by the subscript 0. We have son scattering length aB = 2a3D [5]. The inclusion of the
Gaussian contribution in the BEC limit leads to a modification
1 h i
of the composite boson scattering length from the mean-field
A0 (x, y) = ln (1 + x)2 + y2 ,
2 value 2a3D to 0.55a3D [16, 17].
1 y The divergence of the function f () at 0 is not sur-
B0 (x, y) = arctan ,
y 1+x prising. It is actually consistent with the Bogoliubov EOS
Z
L2 2xz (55) where the logarithmic term in the brackets diverges when
C0 (x, y) = dz , B 0. Therefore, we expect that for 0, the function
0 L2 (L2 + y2 ) L2 4xz 3/2 f () diverges as ln = ln(B /B ). To show this logarith-
Z
L2 2xz mic divergence, we separate the function f () into a divergent
D0 (x, y) = dz ,
0 L3 (L2 + y2 ) L2 4xz 3/2 piece and a finite piece. The details are presented in Appendix
Z A. The divergent piece is given by
1
F0 (x, y) = dz . (60)
8
Z
(L2 + y2 ) L2 4xz F2
Z
0
fd () = dx dy 2 . (62)
0 0 A + y2 B 2
Here we define L z + 1 + x for convenience. In the infrared
limit, x 0 and y 0, the above functions behave as To capture the asymptotic behavior of this divergent piece for
0, we find that it is sufficient to expand the denominator
A0 (x, y) x, B0 (x, y) 1, A2 + y2 B2 to the order O( 2 ) and approximate it as
1 1
C0 (x, y) , D0 (x, y) ,
4 5 A2 + y2 B2 J(x, y) = A20 + y2 B20 + 2A0 A1 + 2 A21 . (63)
1
F0 (x, y) . (61) The explicit form of the function A1 (x, y) is shown in Ap-
2
pendix A. In the infrared limit 0, we have A1 1. The
For further analysis it is convenient to employ the polar co- neglected terms in the above expansion lead to vanishing
ordinates x = cos and y = sin . By making use of the contributions for 0. Therefore, the infrared divergence in
Taylor expansion for the logarithm in (57) (see Appendix A), the limit 0 behaves as
we find that at precisely = 0, the function f () is divergent
8 /2
Z
because of the infrared behavior A20 + y2 B20 2 . We note
Z
1/4 B
d d 2 ln . (64)
that this kind of divergence does not exist in 3D. In 3D, the 0 0 + 2 cos + 2 B
8
Thus we have shown that in the BEC limit B 0, the Gaus- The energy density and pressure in the mean-field theory are
sian contribution GF behaves exactly like the logarithmic given by
term in the Bogoliubov EOS, (55).
To obtain the composite boson scattering length aB , we 1
EMF (n) = MF (MF ) + MF n = EFG nB ,
need to determine the finite piece , which can be defined as 2
PMF (n) = MF (MF ) = PFG , (71)
= lim f () + ln . (65)
0 where EFG = nF /2 and PFG = nF /2 are the energy den-
sity and pressure of a noninteracting 2D Fermi gas with den-
Using the definition of the fermion scattering length a2D ,
sity n, respectively. We see clearly from the pressure that the
4 mean-field theory does not recover a weakly interacting Bose
B = , (66) condensate in the strong attraction limit.
ma22D e2
To show that the chemical potential and the energy density
we obtain the composite boson scattering length suffer from the same problem, we define two dimensionless
r quantities
1
aB = a2D , = . (67) + B /2 E + nB /2
2e1+ = , R= . (72)
F EFG
A careful numerical analysis (see Appendix A) shows that
0.54. Therefore, we obtain In the mean-field theory, the solutions of and R are in-
dependent of the attraction strength in the entire BCS-BEC
0.56. (68) crossover; i.e.,
This result is in good agreement with 0.56 from the MF = 1, RMF = 1. (73)
exact four-body calculation [49] and 0.55(4) from the
EOS predicted by the diffusion Monte Carlo simulation [46]. On the other hand, the Bogoliubov theory predicts that the
We also notice that the pole approximation of the Gaussian canonical EOS of a 2D Bose gas is given by [7682]
quantum fluctuations with a dimensional regularization of the 2n2B
4nB 1 1
UV divergence in the BEC limit predicted an analytical result B = , E = nB B + , (74)
= 1/2 and hence = 1/(21/2e1/4 ) 0.55 [73]. mB ln 1 mB ln 1
nB a2B nB a2B
In the GPF theory, the chemical potential is determined which gives rise to the solution of the chemical potential for
by solving the full number equation the given density n. Meanwhile, the energy density and the
pressure for the given density n are determined. To perform
n = nMF () + nGF (). (77) the numerical calculation, it is convenient to use the dimen-
sionless variable . The mean-field contribution to the grand
Then we can determine the energy density E(n) = MF () + potential is MF () = 2 EFG . The Gaussian contribution to
GF () + n and the pressure P(n) = MF () GF (). The the grand potential can be expressed as
Gaussian contribution nGF () can be worked out analytically
but it is rather tedious. In practice, we start from the grand po-
tential () = MF () + GF (). To determine the chemical g () = g()EFG , (78)
potential , we calculate the energy density as a function of ;
i.e., E() = () + n. We search for the maximum of E(), where the function g() is given by
A(s, t)C(s, t) + t2 B(s, t)D(s, t) + 2F 2 (s, t) 2 2 2
Z Z " #
2 4 4 C (s, t) + t D (s, t)
g() = ds dt ln 1 82 2 + 16 . (79)
0 0 A2 (s, t) + t2 B2 (s, t) A2 (s, t) + t2 B2 (s, t)
d
Z 2 Z " ! #
1 1 1 1 (E+ + + )(E + )
A(s, t) = du + ,
0 2 0 2u + 4 E+ E (E+ + E )2 + t2
d
Z 2 Z
1 (E+ + + )(E + )
B(s, t) = du ,
0 2 0 4E+ E (E+ + E )2 + t2
d
Z 2 Z !
1 1 1 1 1
C(s, t) = du + ,
0 2 0 4 E+ E (E+ + + )(E + ) (E+ + E )2 + t2
d
Z 2 Z
1 1
D(s, t) = du 2 2
,
0 2 0 4E E
+ +(E + + )(E + ) (E + + E ) + t
d
Z 2 Z !
1 1 1 1
F (s, t) = du + 2 2
, (80)
0 2 0 4 E + E (E + + E ) + t
where the variables s = q2 /(8mF ), t = /F , and u = find that the quantum fluctuations become more and more im-
k2 /(2mF ). Here the notations and E are given by portant when the attraction strength increases.
= u + s 2 us cos + ,
2 1
q
E = ( )2 + 2. (81)
0.8
=2.5
Using the function g() we have defined, we can express
the dimensionless quantity R as 0.6 1.5
R()
1
E() + 12 nB
R() = 2 + g() + 2. (82) 0.4
0.5
EFG
0.2 0
The physical results of and R correspond to the maximum
0.5
point of the the function R() in the range 0 1. In the
mean-field theory, we neglect the Gaussian contribution g() 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
and hence R() 2 + 2. The maximum of the function
R() gives the results = 1 and R = 1, which are precisely the
mean-field predictions, (73). Including the Gaussian contri- FIG. 1: (Color online) Curves of the function R() for various values
bution g(), the maximum of R() will be modified since the of the gas parameter = ln(kF a2D ). For comparison, we show the
function g() depends explicitly on the interaction strength mean-field prediction RMF () = 2 + 2 by the dashed line.
or the gas parameter . In Fig. 1, we show the curves of the
function R() for several values of the gas parameter . We
10
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
FG
0.7 0.7
F
(E+n /2)/E
(+ /2)/
0.6 0.6
B
0.5
B
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ln(k a ) ln(k a )
F 2D F 2D
FIG. 2: Evolution of the chemical potential in the BCS-BEC FIG. 4: (Color online) Evolution of the energy density E in the BCS-
crossover. We show the quantity = ( + B /2)/F as a function BEC crossover. The quantity R = (E + nB /2)/EFG is shown as a
of the gas parameter = ln(kF a2D ). The mean-field prediction is function of the gas parameter = ln(kF a2D ). The dashed line repre-
represented by the dashed line. sents the mean-field prediction. The (blue) circles and (red) squares
represent the predictions from the diffusion Monte Carlo simula-
tion [46] and the auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulation [47], respec-
tively. The bottom-left dashed (green) line represents the Bogoliubov
EOS of a weakly interacting 2D Bose gas with the boson scattering
1
10 length aB = 0.56a2D [see Eq. (74)]. The top-right dashed (purple)
line shows the EOS of a weakly interacting 2D Fermi gas [see Eq.
(76)].
0
10
F
/
1
10 1
0.9
0.8
2
10 0.7
FG
0.6
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
P/P
ln(kFa2D) 0.5
0.4
FIG. 3: The order parameter or pairing gap (divided by F ) as 0.3
a function of the gas parameter = ln(kF a2D ). The dashed line is 0.2
the mean-field prediction. The dashed-dotted line corresponds to the
0.1
prediction with GMB effect in the weak coupling regime ( > 2).
0
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ln(k a )
F 2D
In Fig. 2, we show the evolution of the chemical potential FIG. 5: (Color online) Evolution of the pressure P in the BCS-BEC
or, explicitly, the quantity = ( + B /2)/F in the BCS-BEC crossover. P/PFG as a function of the gas parameter = ln(kF a2D ) is
crossover. We find that 1 in the BCS limit and 0 shown. The mean-field prediction is represented by the dashed line.
The (blue) circles with error bars are the experimental data taken
in the BEC limit, in agreement with our general expectation.
from [37].
The order parameter is shown in Fig. 3. We find that the
inclusion of the quantum fluctuations leads to a large suppres-
sion of the order parameter in the strong coupling regime. At
weak coupling, it was shown that the induced interaction or or, explicitly, the quantity R = (E + nB /2)/EFG in the BCS-
the GorkovMelik-Barkhudarov (GMB) effect [93] leads to BEC crossover. In the BEC limit ( ), our result ap-
a suppression of the critical temperature and hence the pairing proaches the Bogoliubov EOS, (74), of weakly interacting 2D
gap by a factor of 1/e [49]. In Fig. 3, we also show the Bose gases with the boson scattering length aB 0.56a2D. In
prediction with the GMB effect in the weak coupling regime the BCS limit ( +), our result tends to the perturbative
( > 2). Obviously, the current GPF theory does not take into EOS, (76), of weakly interacting 2D Fermi gases. The energy
account the GMB effect. density was computed recently by using the diffusion Monte
In Fig. 4, we show the evolution of the energy density E Carlo simulation [46] and the auxiliary-field Monte Carlo sim-
11
0.03
ture of the experimental system: In the deep BCS regime, the
0.02 scattering length a2D becomes larger than the cloud size and
hence the interaction is effectively suppressed [37]. On the
0.01 other hand, it has been argued that the temperature effect may
also be crucial to understand the observed high pressure in the
0 deep BCS regime [70]. In the future, it is necessary to study
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ln(k a )
F 2D the finite-temperature effect in the current GPF theory.
Having determined the EOS, we can calculate the contact
FIG. 6: (Color online) Evolution of the contact C in the BCS-BEC C, which is a powerful quantity to relate the energy, pressure,
crossover. This figure shows (C CMF )/kF4 as a function of the gas and the microscopic momentum distribution [94, 95]. In 2D,
parameter = ln(kF a2D ), where CMF = /2 is the mean-field predic- the contact C can be defined as [96]
tion. The dashed (blue) line and the dash-dotted (red) line represent
the predictions from the diffusion Monte Carlo simulation [46] and C 1 d(E/EFG )
the auxiliary-field Monte Carlo simulation [47], respectively. = . (84)
kF4 4 d
Carlo results. We calculated the chemical potential, the en- 2D BCS-BEC crossover [43] and the phase structure of spin-
ergy density, the pressure, and the contact for a homogeneous imbalanced 2D Fermi gases [41].
2D Fermi gas in the BCS-BEC crossover. Our theoretical pre-
dictions are in good agreements with recent quantum Monte
Acknowledgments: We thank Shiwei Zhang and Hao Shi
Carlo results and experimental measurements.
for helpful discussions and Andrey Turlapov for useful com-
In the future, it is necessary to consider more many-body
munications. The work of Lianyi He was supported by the
effects to explain the slight discrepancy between our theoret-
U. S. Department of Energy Nuclear Physics Office (Contract
ical prediction and the quantum Monte Carlo results, such as
No. DE-AC02-05CH11231). Haifeng Lu was supported by
the GMB effect and the non-Gaussian fluctuations. In the
NSFC (Grant No. 61474018). Gaoqing Cao acknowledges
BEC limit, an exact low-density expansion for the compos-
the support from NSFC (Grant No. 11335005) and MOST
ite bosons [97] could also exist in 2D. It is also interest-
(Grant No. 2013CB922000 and No. 2014CB845400). Hui
ing to extend the present theoretical approach to the finite-
Hu and Xia-Ji Liu were supported by the ARC Discovery
temperature case and the spin-imbalanced case. The inclu-
Projects (Grant No. FT130100815, No. FT140100003, No.
sion of the Gaussian fluctuations may provide better predic-
DP140103231, and No. DP140100637).
tions for the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in the
4
Z
AC + y2 BD + 2F 2 2 2
Z
C2 + y2 D2
Z Z
f () = dx dy 2 2 2
dx dy 2
0 0 A +y B 0 0 A + y2 B 2
n
2 X 2n2 X n k (AC + y2 BD + 2F 2 )k (C2 + y2 D2 )nk
! Z Z
+ 2 (1)nk 2n2k dx dy (A1)
n=2 n k=0 k 0 0 (A2 + y2 B2 )n
To analyze the infrared divergence for 0, we expand the quantities A and B in the denominators in powers of ,
X n X n
A(x, y) = A0 (x, y) + An (x, y), B(x, y) = B0 (x, y) + Bn (x, y), (A2)
n=1
n! n=1
n!
where An = n A/ n |=0 and Bn = n B/ n |=0 . The expansion coefficients An and Bn can be evaluated to arbitrary order by
using Mathematica. Here we list the results for A1 and B1 . We have
Z Z
2L2
!
1 8xz 2
A1 = dz 2 1 + 2 + dz 2 1 ,
0 L + y2 L 4xz 3/2 0 L2 + y2 2 L 4xz
Z Z !
2L 1 2L 2
B1 = dz 2 + dz 1 , (A3)
0 L + y2 L2 4xz3/2 0 L2 + y2 2
L2 4xz
where L z + 1 + x as defined in the text. In the infrared limit x, y 0, we have A1 1 and B1 1. The expansion of the
quantity A2 + y2 B2 takes the form
n
X X 1 h i
A2 (x, y) + y2 B2 (x, y) = A20 (x, y) + y2 B20 (x, y) + n Ak (x, y)Ank (x, y) + y2 Bk (x, y)Bnk (x, y) . (A4)
n=1 k=0
k!(n k)!
For further analysis, it is convenient to use the polar coordinates x = cos and y = sin . At exactly = 0, we have
A20 + y2 B20 2 in the infrared limit 0. To capture the leading asymptotic behavior, we find that it is sufficient to
approximate the quantity A2 + y2 B2 as
A2 (x, y) + y2 B2 (x, y) J(x, y) = A20 (x, y) + y2 B20 (x, y) + 2A0 (x, y)A1 (x, y) + 2 A21 (x, y). (A5)
In the infrared limit 0, the function J(x, y) behaves as
J(x, y) 2 + 2 cos + 2 . (A6)
The other contributions we neglected in approximation (A5) behave in the infrared limit as
X X X
an n 2 + bn n + cn n . (A7)
n=1 n=2 n=3
13
The above terms lead to vanishing contributions in the limit 0. One can prove this observation by carefully analyzing the
infrared behavior of the following integral
Z
m
Imn = d 2 . (A8)
0 ( + 2 cos + 2 )n
The properties of the integral Imn can be summarized as follows: For m > 2(n 1), the integral is finite; for m = 2(n 1), it
diverges as Imn ln ; and for m < 2(n 1), we have Imn 1/ 2n2m for 0.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
f()+ln
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1 6 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 10
FIG. 7: The quantity f () + ln() as a function of in the range 106 < < 102 . In the calculation we use Eq. (A16) for f ().
In the infrared limit 0, the second term in the expansion, (A1), behaves as
/2 1 1 2 2
2 2 C2 + y2 D2 2 2 16 + 25 sin
Z Z Z Z
dx dy 2 2 2
d d . (A9)
0 0 A +y B 0 0 2 + 2 cos + 2
It vanishes in the limit 0. The third term in the expansion, (A1), behaves as
n Z Z
2 X 2n2 X n k (AC + y2 BD + 2F 2 )k (C2 + y2 D2 )nk
!
nk 2n2k
2 (1) dx dy
n=2 n k=0 k 0 0 (A2 + y2 B2 )n
n Z /2 Z
2 X 2n2 X n k ( cos /4 + 2 sin2 /5 + 1/2)k (1/16 + 2 sin2 /25)nk
!
2 (1)nk 2n2k d d .(A10)
n=2 n k=0 k 0 0 (2 + 2 cos + 2 )n
A careful analysis shows that this term leads to a finite contribution in the limit 0. The nonvanishing contribution from the
k = n terms can be expressed as
!n
2 X1
Z
4 2 F 2
Z
dx dy
2 n=2 n 0 0 A2 + y2 B2
Z Z
8
Z
F2 F2
! Z
2
= 2 dx dy ln 1 4 2 2 2 2
dx dy 2 . (A11)
0 0 A +y B 0 0 A + y2 B 2
Next we analyze the first term in (A1), which develops the logarithmic divergence. In the infrared limit, it behaves as
/2
AC + y2 BD + 2F 2 4 cos /4 + 2 sin2 /5 + 1/2
Z Z Z Z
4
dx dy d d . (A12)
0 0 A2 + y2 B2 0 0 2 + 2 cos + 2
Therefore, we can separate the above contribution into two pieces. The finite piece is given by
AC + y2 BD
Z Z
4
dx dy . (A13)
0 0 A2 + y2 B2
14
F 2 (x, y) 4
Z Z Z
A0 (x, y)C0 (x, y) + y2 B0 (x, y)D0 (x, y)
Z
2 2 0
f () 2 dx dy ln 1 4
+
dx dy . (A16)
0 0 J(x, y) 0 0 A20 (x, y) + y2 B20 (x, y)
In Fig. 7 we show the numerical result of f () +ln() in the range 106 < < 102 . It is clear that in the limit 0, it converges
to a constant. Thus we determine 0.54.
[1] D. M. Eagles, Possible pairing without superconductivity at low [14] A. Perali, P. Pieri, L. Pisani, and G. C. Strinati, BCS-BEC
carrier concentrations in bulk and thin-film superconducting crossover at finite temperature for superfluid trapped Fermi
semiconductors, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969). atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 220404 (2004).
[2] A. J. Leggett, Diatomic molecules and Cooper pairs, in Modern [15] P. Pieri, L. Pisani, and G. C. Strinati, BCS-BEC crossover at fi-
Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter, Lecture Notes in nite temperature in the broken-symmetry phase, Phys. Rev. B70,
Physics, Vol. 115 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980). 094508 (2004).
[3] P. Nozieres and S. Schmitt-Rink, Bose condensation in an at- [16] H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, and P. D. Drummond, Equation of state of
tractive fermion gas: From weak to strong coupling supercon- a superfluid Fermi gas in the BCS-BEC crossover, Europhys.
ductivity, J. Low Temp. Phys. 59, 195 (1985). Lett. 74, 574 (2006).
[4] C. A. R. Sa de Melo, M. Randeria, and J. R. Engelbrecht, [17] R. B. Diener, R. Sensarma, and M. Randeria, Quantum fluctu-
Crossover from BCS to Bose superconductivity: Transition tem- ations in the superfluid state of the BCS-BEC crossover, Phys.
perature and time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory, Phys. Rev. A77, 023626 (2008).
Rev. Lett. 71, 3202 (1993). [18] H. Hu, X. -J. Liu, and P. D. Drumond, Universal thermody-
[5] J. R. Engelbrecht, M. Randeria, and C. A. R. Sa de Melo, BCS namics of strongly interacting Fermi gases, Nat. Phys. 3, 469
to Bose crossover: Broken-symmetry state, Phys. Rev. B55, (2007).
15153 (1997). [19] Y. Nishida and D. T. Son, expansion for a Fermi gas at infinite
[6] Q. Chen, J. Stajic, S. Tan, and K. Levin, BCS-BEC crossover: scattering length, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 050403 (2006).
From high temperature superconductors to ultracold superflu- [20] R. Haussmann, W. Rantner, S. Cerrito, and W. Zwerger,
ids, Phys. Rep. 412, 1 (2005). Thermodynamics of the BCS-BEC crossover, Phys. Rev. A75,
[7] V. Gurarie, and L. Radzihovsky, Resonantly-paired fermionic 023610 (2007).
superfluids, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 322, 2 (2007). [21] M. Y. Veillette, D. E. Sheehy, and L. Radzihovsky, Large-N
[8] S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Theory of ultra- expansion for unitary superfluid Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A75,
cold atomic Fermi gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1215 (2008). 043614 (2007).
[9] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Emergence of a molec- [22] Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin, Superfluidity and collective modes in
ular Bose-Einstein condensate from a Fermi gas, Nature 426, a uniform gas of Fermi atoms with a Feshbach resonance, Phys.
537 (2003). Rev. A67, 063612 (2003).
[10] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, [23] E. Taylor, A. Griffin, N. Fukushima, and Y. Ohashi, Pairing
C. Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Bose-Einstein fluctuations and the superfluid density through the BCS-BEC
condensation of molecules, Science 302, 2101(2003). crossover, Phys. Rev. A74, 063626 (2006).
[11] M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. [24] N. Fukushima, Y. Ohashi, E. Taylor, and A. Griffin, Super-
Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Vortices and superfluidity in a fluid density and condensate fraction in the BCS-BEC crossover
strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature 435, 1047 (2003). regime at finite temperatures, Phys. Rev. A75, 033609 (2007).
[12] T. Koehler, K. Goral, and P. S. Julienne, Production of cold [25] S. Nascimbene, N. Navon, K. Jiang, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon,
molecules via magnetically tunable Feshbach resonances, Rev. Exploring the thermodynamics of a universal Fermi gas, Nature
Mod. Phys. 78, 1311 (2006). 463, 1057 (2010).
[13] C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Feshbach res- [26] N. Navon, S. Nascimbene, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, The
onances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010). equation of state of a low-temperature Fermi gas with tunable
15
interactions, Science 328, 729 (2010). erties of strongly interacting Fermi gases in two dimensions,
[27] M. J. H. Ku, A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, and M. W. Zwier- arXiv:1504.00925.
lein, Revealing the superfluid lambda transition in the univer- [48] E. R. Anderson and J. E. Drut, Pressure, compressibility,
sal thermodynamics of a unitary Fermi gas, Science 335, 563 and contact of the two-dimensional attractive Fermi gas,
(2012). arXiv:1505.01525.
[28] J. Carlson, S.-Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, and K. E. [49] D. S. Petrov, M. A. Baranov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Super-
Schmidt, Superfluid Fermi gases with large scattering length, fluid transition in quasi-two-dimensional Fermi gases, Phys.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 050401 (2003). Rev. A67, 031601(R) (2003).
[29] C. Lobo, A. Recati, S. Giorgini, and S. Stringari, Normal state [50] J.-P. Martikainen and P. Torma, Quasi-two-dimensional super-
of a polarized Fermi gas at unitarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, fluid fermionic gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 170407 (2005).
200403 (2006). [51] J. Tempere, M. Wouters and J. T. Devreese, Imbalanced Fermi
[30] M. M. Forbes, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis, Resonantly inter- superfluid in a one-dimensional optical potential, Phys. Rev.
acting fermions in a box, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 235303 (2011). B75, 184526 (2007).
[31] J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and S. Zhang, [52] W. Zhang, G.-D. Lin, and L.-M. Duan, Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-
Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for strongly Thouless transition in a trapped quasi-two-dimensional Fermi
paired fermions, Phys. Rev. A84, 061602(R) (2011). gas near a Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A78, 043617
[32] K. Miyake, Fermi liquid theory of dilute submonolayer 3 He on (2008).
thin 4 He II film: Dimer bound state and cooper pairs, Prog. [53] G. J. Conduit, P. H. Conlon and B. D. Simons, Superfluid-
Theor. Phys. 69, 1794 (1983). ity at the BEC-BCS crossover in two-dimensional Fermi gases
[33] M. Randeria, J.-M. Duan, and L.-Y. Shieh, Bound states, with population and mass imbalance, Phys. Rev. A77, 053617
Cooper pairing, and Bose condensation in two dimensions, (2008).
Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 981 (1989). [54] L. He and P. Zhuang, Phase diagram of a cold polarized Fermi
[34] M. Randeria, J.-M. Duan, and L.-Y. Shieh, Superconductivity in gas in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A78, 033613 (2008).
a two-dimensional Fermi gas: Evolution from Cooper pairing [55] M. Iskin and C. A. R. Sa de Melo, Evolution from
to Bose condensation, Phys. Rev. B41, 327 (1990). BCS to Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless superfluidity in one-
[35] V. M. Loktev, R. M. Quick, and S. G. Sharapov, Phase fluctua- dimensional optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 165301
tions and pseudogap phenomena, Phys. Rep. 349, 1 (2001). (2009).
[36] K. Martiyanov, V. Makhalov, and A. Turlapov, Observation of [56] A. A. Orel, P. Dyke, M. Delehaye, C. J. Vale, and H. Hu, Den-
a two-dimensional Fermi gas of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, sity distribution of a trapped two-dimensional strongly interact-
030404 (2010). ing Fermi gas, New J. Phys. 13, 113032 (2011).
[37] V. Makhalov, K. Martiyanov, and A. Turlapov, Ground-state [57] S. Zoellner, G. M. Bruun, and C. J. Pethick, Polarons and
pressure of quasi-2D Fermi and Bose gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. molecules in a two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A83,
112, 045301 (2014). 021603(R) (2011).
[38] B. Frohlich, M. Feld, E. Vogt, M. Koschorreck, W. Zwerger, [58] V. Pietila, Pairing and radio-frequency spectroscopy in two-
and M. Kohl, Radiofrequency spectroscopy of a strongly in- dimensional Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A86, 023608 (2012).
teracting two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, [59] E. Taylor and M. Randeria, Apparent low-energy scale invari-
105301 (2011). ance in two-dimensional Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,
[39] M. Feld, B. Frohlich, E. Vogt, M. Koschorreck, and M Kohl, 135301 (2012).
Observation of a pairing pseudogap in a two-dimensional [60] J. Hofmann, Quantum anomaly, universal relations, and
Fermi gas, Nature 480, 75 (2011). breathing mode of a two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev.
[40] Y. Zhang, W. Ong, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Polarons Lett. 108, 185303 (2012).
in the radio-frequency spectrum of a quasi-two-dimensional [61] L. He and X.-G. Huang, BCS-BEC crossover in 2D Fermi gases
Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 235302 (2012). with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 145302
[41] W. Ong, C.-Y. Cheng, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Spin- (2012).
imbalanced quasi-two-dimensional Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. [62] H. Caldas, A. L. Mota, R. L. S. Farias, and L. A. Souza, Su-
Lett. 114, 110403 (2015). perfluidity in two-dimensional imbalanced Fermi gases, J. Stat.
[42] M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Zrn, L. Bayha, I. Boettcher, D. Mech.: Theory Exp. P10019 (2012).
Kedar, P. A. Murthy, M. Neidig, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, [63] M. A. Resende, A. L. Mota, R. L. S. Farias, and H. Caldas,
Observation of pair condensation in the quasi-2D BEC-BCS Finite temperature phase diagram of quasi-two-dimensional
crossover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 230401 (2015). imbalanced Fermi gases beyond mean-field, Phys. Rev. A86,
[43] P. A. Murthy, I. Boettcher, L. Bayha, M. Holzmann, D. Kedar, 033603 (2012).
M. Neidig, M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Zrn, and S. Jochim, [64] S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, and J. T. Devreese, Pseudogap and
Observation of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless phase tran- preformed pairs in the imbalanced Fermi gas in two dimen-
sition in an ultracold Fermi gas, arXiv:1505.02123. sions, New J. Phys. 14, 103044 (2012).
[44] A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, M. J. H. Ku, W. S. Bakr, and M. [65] V. Ngampruetikorn, J. Levinsen, and M. M. Parish, Pair corre-
W. Zwierlein, Evolution of fermion pairing from three to two lations in the two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111,
dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 045302 (2012). 265301 (2013).
[45] P. Dyke, E. D. Kuhnle, S. Whitlock, H. Hu, M. Mark, S. [66] M. M. Parish and J. Levinsen, Highly polarized Fermi gases in
Hoinka, M. Lingham, P. Hannaford, and C. J. Vale, Crossover two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A87, 033616 (2013).
from 2D to 3D in a weakly interacting Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. [67] L. Salasnich, P. A. Marchetti, and F. Toigo, Superfluidity, sound
Lett. 106, 105304 (2011). velocity, and quasicondensation in the two-dimensional BCS-
[46] G. Bertaina and S. Giorgini, BCS-BEC crossover in a two- BEC crossover, Phys. Rev. A88, 053612 (2013).
dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 110403 (2011). [68] A. M. Fischer and M. M. Parish, BCS-BEC crossover in a
[47] H. Shi, S. Chiesa, and S. Zhang, Exact ground-state prop- quasi-two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A88, 023612
16
(2013). (1975).
[69] P. Strack and P. Jakubczyk, Fluctuations of imbalanced [84] J. R. Engelbrecht, M. Randeria, and L. Zhang, Landau f func-
fermionic superfluids in two dimensions induce continuous tion for the dilute Fermi gas in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B45,
quantum phase transitions and non-Fermi-liquid behavior, 10135(R) (1992).
Phys. Rev. X4, 021012 (2014). [85] L. He, Interaction energy and itinerant ferromagnetism in a
[70] M. Bauer, M. M. Parish, and T. Enss, Universal equation of strongly interacting Fermi gas in the absence of molecule for-
state and pseudogap in the two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. mation, Phys. Rev. A90, 053633 (2014).
Rev. Lett. 112, 135302 (2014). [86] T. D. Cohen, Functional integrals for QCD at nonzero chemical
[71] M. Barth and J. Hofmann, Pairing effects in the nondegenerate potential and zero density, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 222001 (2003).
limit of the two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A89, 013614 [87] L. He, NambuJona-Lasinio model description of weakly in-
(2014). teracting Bose condensate and BEC-BCS crossover in dense
[72] F. Marsiglio, P. Pieri, A. Perali, F. Palestini, and G. C. Strinati, QCD-like theories, Phys. Rev. D82, 096003 (2010).
Pairing effects in the normal phase of a two-dimensional Fermi [88] J. Keeling, P. R. Eastham, M. H. Szymanska, and P. B. Little-
gas, Phys. Rev. B91, 054509 (2015). wood, BCS-BEC crossover in a system of microcavity polari-
[73] L. Salasnich and F. Toigo, Composite bosons in the two- tons, Phys. Rev. B72, 115320 (2005).
dimensional BCS-BEC crossover from Gaussian fluctuations, [89] M. Drechsler and W. Zwerger, Crossover from BCS-
Phys. Rev. A91, 011604(R) (2015). superconductivity to Bose-condensation, Annalen der Physik 1,
[74] D. E. Sheehy, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state of two- 15 (1992).
dimensional imbalanced Fermi gases, arXiv: 1407.8021. [90] L. He and X.-G. Huang, BCS-BEC crossover in three-
[75] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Weakly bound dimensional Fermi gases with spherical spin-orbit coupling,
dimers of fermionic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 090404 (2004). Phys. Rev. B86, 014511 (2012).
[76] V. N. Popov, On the theory of the superfluidity of two- and one- [91] M. D. Lee, S. A. Morgan, M. J. Davis, and K. Burnett, En-
dimensional Bose systems, Theor. Math. Phys. 11, 565 (1972). ergy dependent scattering and the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in
[77] A. Y. Cherny and A. A. Shanenko, Dilute Bose gas in two di- two dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A65,
mensions: Density expansions and the Gross-Pitaevskii equa- 043617 (2002).
tion, Phys. Rev. E64, 027105 (2001). [92] I. V. Brodsky, M. Yu. Kagan, A. V. Klaptsov, R. Combescot, and
[78] C. Mora and Y. Castin, Extension of Bogoliubov theory to qua- X. Leyronas, Exact diagrammatic approach for dimer-dimer
sicondensates, Phys. Rev. A67, 053615 (2003). scattering and bound states of three and four resonantly inter-
[79] L. Pricoupenko, Variational approach for the two-dimensional acting particles, Phys. Rev. A73, 032724 (2006).
trapped Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A70, 013601 [93] L. P. Gorkov and T. K. Melik-Barkhudarov, Contribution to
(2004). the theory of superfluidity in an imperfect fermi gas, Sov. Phys.
[80] G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, I. L. Kurbakov, JETP 13, 1018 (1961).
and Yu. E. Lozovik, Equation of state of a weakly interacting [94] S. Tan, Energetics of a strongly correlated Fermi gas, Ann.
two-dimensional Bose gas studied at zero temperature by means Phys. (N. Y.), 323, 2952 (2008).
of quantum Monte Carlo methods, Phys. Rev. A79, 051602(R) [95] S. Tan, Large momentum part of fermions with large scattering
(2009). length, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 232, 2971 (2008).
[81] C. Mora and Y. Castin, Ground state energy of the two- [96] F. Werner and Y. Castin, General relations for quantum gases
dimensional weakly interacting Bose gas: first correction be- in two and three dimensions: Two-component fermions, Phys.
yond Bogoliubov theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180404 (2009). Rev. A86, 013626 (2012).
[82] S. R. Beane, Ground-state energy of the interacting Bose gas [97] X. Leyronas and R. Combescot, Superfluid equation of state of
in two dimensions: An explicit construction, Phys. Rev. A82, dilute composite bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 170402 (2007).
063610 (2010).
[83] P. Bloom, Two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. B12, 125