arxiv: 2603.03703 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-04 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: no theorem link

NMR evidence of spin supersolid and Pomeranchuk effect behaviors in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Rb₂Ni₂(SeO₃)₃

Ying Chen , Zhanlong Wu , Xuejuan Gui , Guijing Duan , Shuo Li , Xiaoyu Xu , Kefan Du , Xinyu Shi

show 10 more authors

Rui Bian Xiaohui Bo Guochen Liu Jun Luo Jie Yang Yi Cui Rui Zhou Jinchen Wang Rong Yu Weiqiang Yu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

keywords NMRspin supersolidtriangular lattice antiferromagnetUUD phasePomeranchuk effectgapless regimesfrustrated magnetismRb2Ni2(SeO3)3

0 comments

The pith

NMR data identify spin supersolid Y and V phases in Rb2Ni2(SeO3)3 with a negative-sloping UUD-V boundary.

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

The paper reports 85Rb NMR measurements on the S=1 bilayer triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Rb2Ni2(SeO3)3 in fields up to 26 T. Spectral splitting and intensity ratios establish an up-up-down (UUD) magnetic phase over a wide field window, with the 1/3 plateau appearing only above 16 T. Two separate gapless regimes are observed and assigned to the theoretically predicted spin supersolid Y and V phases. The UUD-V phase boundary shows a negative dT/dH slope, placing the supersolid at higher temperature than the solid phase because of strong low-energy spin fluctuations.

Core claim

In the field range from 3 T to 26 T, the NMR spectral lines split and their respective spectral weight ratios reveal the existence of the magnetic up-up-down (UUD) phase, although the 1/3-plateau phase is only reached at fields above 16 T. Two distinct gapless regimes are further identified: one at low fields and low temperatures, and the other at high fields and high temperatures, consistent with the spin supersolid Y and V phases. Notably, the UUD-V phase boundary exhibits a negative slope in dT/dH, where the supersolid phase is located at temperatures above the solid phase due to strong low-energy spin fluctuations.

What carries the argument

Splitting of NMR spectral lines together with their intensity ratios, used to map the UUD phase and to locate the two gapless regimes assigned to supersolid Y and V states.

If this is right

The UUD phase occupies a broad field interval from 3 T to 26 T even though the 1/3 plateau is reached only above 16 T.
Two distinct temperature-field regions exhibit gapless spin excitations assigned to supersolid Y and V states.
The UUD-V boundary has negative dT/dH, locating the supersolid phase above the solid phase because of low-energy fluctuations.
This negative slope constitutes a spin analog of the Pomeranchuk effect driven by entropy differences.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Confirmation of the supersolid assignment would make this compound a concrete platform for studying two-dimensional spin supersolidity.
The same NMR signatures of gapless regimes and negative phase-boundary slope could be sought in other triangular-lattice antiferromagnets.
Microscopic spin-model calculations of the expected NMR line shapes would provide a direct test of the phase assignments.

Load-bearing premise

The gapless NMR regimes are assumed to match the spin supersolid Y and V phases without independent order-parameter data or direct microscopic-model comparisons.

What would settle it

An NMR spectrum or thermodynamic measurement showing either positive dT/dH slope at the UUD-V boundary or gapless regions whose field-temperature locations do not match the predicted Y and V supersolid windows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03703 by Guijing Duan, Guochen Liu, Jie Yang, Jinchen Wang, Jun Luo, Kefan Du, Rong Yu, Rui Bian, Rui Zhou, Shuo Li, Weiqiang Yu, Xiaohui Bo, Xiaoyu Xu, Xinyu Shi, Xuejuan Gui, Yi Cui, Ying Chen, Zhanlong Wu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We performed $^{85}$Rb nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements on the $S$ = 1 bilayer triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Rb$_2$Ni$_2$(SeO$_3$)$_3$ in magnetic fields up to 26 T. In the field range from 3 T to 26 T, the NMR spectral lines split and their respective spectral weight ratios reveal the existence of the magnetic up-up-down (UUD) phase, although the 1/3-plateau phase is only reached at fields above 16 T. Two distinct gapless regimes are further identified: one at low fields and low temperatures, and the other at high fields and high temperatures, consistent with the spin supersolid Y and V phases. Notably, the UUD-V phase boundary exhibits a negative slope in $dT/dH$, where the supersolid phase is located at temperatures above the solid phase due to strong low-energy spin fluctuations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

New 85Rb NMR spectra up to 26 T on this bilayer triangular antiferromagnet show line splitting and two gapless regimes that the authors assign to the UUD phase plus Y and V supersolid states, with a negative dT/dH boundary they link to fluctuations.

read the letter

The paper reports fresh high-field NMR data on Rb2Ni2(SeO3)3. In the 3-26 T window the 85Rb lines split and the weight ratios track the up-up-down phase, even though the 1/3 magnetization plateau only appears above 16 T. They also locate two gapless regimes—one low-field low-T and one high-field high-T—that line up with the predicted spin supersolid Y and V states, and they note the UUD-V boundary has a negative slope in the T-H plane that they tie to strong low-energy fluctuations. That boundary observation is the part worth watching if it survives closer scrutiny. The work applies standard NMR to a material whose phase diagram had been mapped theoretically, so the concrete spectra and phase-boundary points are the actual addition. The data look clean enough from the abstract to be useful for people modeling frustrated S=1 bilayers. The main limitation is that the phase assignments rest on field-range overlap and the presence of gapless behavior rather than a calculated NMR lineshape from the Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus the hyperfine tensor. No error bars or explicit exclusion of inhomogeneity appear in the summary, and alternative gapless states could produce similar splitting. If the full manuscript includes raw spectra, fitting details, and a direct comparison to the microscopic model, that would strengthen the central claim considerably. This is the sort of targeted experimental report that groups working on triangular-lattice magnets will want to read and discuss. It does not introduce new theory or a new technique, but it supplies previously unpublished spectra on a compound where the supersolid phases were expected. I would bring it to a reading group to go over the lineshape interpretation and the robustness of the negative slope. Send it to peer review; the data are worth referee time even if the phase mapping needs tighter quantitative support.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 85Rb NMR measurements on the S=1 bilayer triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Rb2Ni2(SeO3)3 in magnetic fields up to 26 T. It claims that spectral line splitting and weight ratios from 3 T to 26 T indicate the up-up-down (UUD) magnetic phase (with the 1/3 plateau reached only above 16 T), while two gapless regimes at low-field/low-T and high-field/high-T are consistent with spin supersolid Y and V phases. The UUD-V boundary is reported to exhibit a negative dT/dH slope attributed to strong low-energy spin fluctuations placing the supersolid above the solid phase.

Significance. If the phase identifications hold, the work would provide notable experimental evidence for spin supersolidity and a Pomeranchuk-like effect in a frustrated quantum magnet, advancing understanding of fluctuation-stabilized exotic phases on triangular lattices. The high-field NMR mapping of phase boundaries is a technical strength, though the interpretive nature limits immediate impact without further validation.

major comments (2)

[Results] Results section: The central claim that NMR spectral splitting and weight ratios uniquely identify the UUD phase (3-26 T) and map the gapless regimes specifically to Y (low-field) and V (high-field) supersolid states rests on qualitative overlap with theory rather than quantitative lineshape modeling from the bilayer triangular Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus hyperfine tensor; alternative gapless or inhomogeneous states are not explicitly excluded.
[Discussion] Phase diagram and discussion: No error bars, raw spectra, fitting procedures, or statistical criteria are provided for the extracted phase boundaries or the negative dT/dH slope at the UUD-V transition, which is load-bearing for the attribution to low-energy fluctuations and the supersolid-above-solid ordering.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: Temperature range and sample characterization details are omitted, reducing context for the reported regimes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our NMR results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section: The central claim that NMR spectral splitting and weight ratios uniquely identify the UUD phase (3-26 T) and map the gapless regimes specifically to Y (low-field) and V (high-field) supersolid states rests on qualitative overlap with theory rather than quantitative lineshape modeling from the bilayer triangular Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus hyperfine tensor; alternative gapless or inhomogeneous states are not explicitly excluded.

Authors: We agree that a full quantitative lineshape simulation based on the bilayer triangular Heisenberg model and the hyperfine tensor would provide stronger support. Such modeling is computationally demanding given the unknown precise hyperfine parameters and the bilayer geometry, and was not feasible within the present study. Our assignment instead relies on the observed three-component splitting with intensity ratios approaching 1:2:1 and the field range where the 1/3 plateau appears, features that are characteristic of the UUD state in triangular-lattice antiferromagnets. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion of why alternative gapless phases (e.g., spin liquids) or inhomogeneous states are inconsistent with the systematic field and temperature evolution of the spectra and with the appearance of the plateau above 16 T. We have also noted the qualitative nature of the identification and the desirability of future quantitative comparisons. revision: partial
Referee: [Discussion] Phase diagram and discussion: No error bars, raw spectra, fitting procedures, or statistical criteria are provided for the extracted phase boundaries or the negative dT/dH slope at the UUD-V transition, which is load-bearing for the attribution to low-energy fluctuations and the supersolid-above-solid ordering.

Authors: We accept this criticism. In the revised manuscript we now include representative raw NMR spectra in the Supplementary Information, describe the fitting procedures used to extract resonance positions and intensities, and report the statistical criteria (signal-to-noise thresholds and reproducibility across multiple field sweeps) employed to locate the phase boundaries. Error bars have been added to the data points in the phase diagram. For the UUD-V boundary we have clarified how the negative dT/dH slope was determined and expanded the discussion of its implication for fluctuation-stabilized supersolid order above the solid phase. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental phase assignments rely on external theory comparison

full rationale

This is a purely experimental NMR report. The central claims (UUD phase identification via spectral splitting and weight ratios between 3-26 T, plus two gapless regimes assigned to Y and V supersolid phases) are presented as consistency with prior theoretical models of the bilayer triangular-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet. No derivation chain exists inside the paper; there are no equations that define a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that reduce the result to an unverified internal premise. Phase boundaries and negative dT/dH slope are interpreted against external benchmarks rather than constructed from the data by definition. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external theory and data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NMR interpretation of spectral splitting and weight ratios as indicators of spin configurations, plus the assumption that gapless behavior matches theoretical supersolid predictions.

axioms (2)

domain assumption NMR line splitting and intensity ratios directly reflect the local spin arrangement in the UUD phase.
Invoked when mapping spectral features to the up-up-down configuration.
domain assumption Gapless NMR regimes correspond to the theoretically predicted spin supersolid Y and V phases.
Used to label the two identified gapless regimes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5539 in / 1403 out tokens · 49337 ms · 2026-05-15T17:10:45.858254+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Brassington A, Huang Q, Aczel A A and Zhou H D 2024Phys. Rev. Mater.8(1) 014005

work page
[2]

Kohama Y , Ishikawa H, Matsuo A, Kindo K, Shannon N and Hiroi Z 2019Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.11610686–10690

work page
[3]

Starykh O A 2015Rep. Prog. Phys.78052502

work page
[4]

Yosefin M and Domany E 1985Phys. Rev. B32(3) 1778–1795

work page
[5]

Derrida B, Vannimenus J and Pomeau Y 1978J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.114749

work page
[6]

Kawamura H and Miyashita S 1985J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.544530–4538

work page
[7]

Yoshikawa S, Okunishi K, Senda M and Miyashita S 2004J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.731798–1804

work page
[8]

Seabra L, Momoi T, Sindzingre P and Shannon N 2011Phys. Rev. B 84(21) 214418

work page
[9]

Phys.: Condens

Nakayama G, Hara S, Sato H, Narumi Y and Nojiri H 2013J. Phys.: Condens. Matter25116003

work page
[10]

Yamamoto D, Marmorini G and Danshita I 2014Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(12) 127203

work page
[11]

G ¨otze O, Richter J, Zinke R and Farnell D 2016J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 397333–341 ISSN 0304-8853

work page
[12]

Phys.: Condens

Chubukov A V and Golosov D I 1991J. Phys.: Condens. Matter369

work page
[13]

Phys.: Condens

Farnell D J J, Zinke R, Schulenburg J and Richter J 2009J. Phys.: Condens. Matter21406002

work page
[14]

Susuki T, Kurita N, Tanaka T, Nojiri H, Matsuo A, Kindo K and Tanaka H 2013Phys. Rev. Lett.110(26) 267201

work page
[15]

Balents L 2010Nature464199

work page
[16]

Balz C, Lake B, Reuther J, Luetkens H, Sch ¨onemann R, Her- rmannsd¨orfer T, Singh Y , Nazmul Islam A, Wheeler E M, Rodriguez- Rivera J A, Guidi T, Simeoni G G, Baines C and Ryll H 2016Nat. Phys. 12942–949

work page
[17]

Banerjee A, Lampen-Kelley P, Knolle J, Balz C, Aczel A A, Winn B, Liu Y , Pajerowski D, Yan J, Bridges C Aet al.2018npj Quant. Mater. 38

work page
[18]

Phys.15262–268

Clark L, Sala G, Maharaj D D, Stone M B, Knight K S, Telling M T, Wang X, Xu X, Kim J, Li Y , Cheong S W and Gaulin B D 2019Nat. Phys.15262–268

work page
[19]

Wang F, Pollmann F and Vishwanath A 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.102(1) 017203

work page
[20]

Jiang H C, Weng M Q, Weng Z Y , Sheng D N and Balents L 2009Phys. Rev. B79(2) 020409

work page
[21]

Heidarian D and Paramekanti A 2010Phys. Rev. Lett.104(1) 015301

work page
[22]

Murtazaev A, Badiev M, Ramazanov M and Magomedov M 2021 Phase Trans.94394–403

work page 2021
[23]

Chanlert P, Kurita N, Tanaka H, Kimata M and Nojiri H 2017Phys. Rev. B96(6) 064419

work page
[24]

Stock C, Chapon L C, Adamopoulos O, Lappas A, Giot M, Taylor J W, Green M A, Brown C M and Radaelli P G 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.103(7) 077202

work page
[25]

Usp.38457

Dotsenko V S 1995Phys. Usp.38457

work page
[26]

Gaulin B DHyperfine Interact.85159–171

work page
[27]

Leggett A J 1970Phys. Rev. Lett.25(22) 1543–1546

work page
[28]

Xiang J, Zhang C, Gao Y , Schmidt W, Schmalzl K, Wang C W, Li B, Xi N, Liu X Y , Jin H, Li G, Shen J, Chen Z, Qi Y , Wan Y , Jin W, Li W, Sun P and Su G 2024Nature625270–275

work page
[29]

Xu X, Wu Z, Chen Y , Huang Q, Hu Z, Shi X, Du K, Li S, Bian R, Yu R, Cui Y , Zhou H and Yu W 2025Phys. Rev. B112(12) 125163

work page
[30]

Sheng J, Wang L, Candini A, Jiang W, Huang L, Xi B, Zhao J, Ge H, Zhao N, Fu Y , Ren J, Yang J, Miao P, Tong X, Yu D, Wang S, Liu Q, Kofu M, Mole R, Biasiol G, Yu D, Zaliznyak I A, Mei J W and Wu L 2022Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.119e2211193119

work page
[31]

Zhu M, Romerio V , Steiger N, Nabi S D, Murai N, Ohira-Kawamura S, Povarov K Y , Skourski Y , Sibille R, Keller L, Yan Z, Gvasaliya S and Zheludev A 2024Phys. Rev. Lett.133(18) 186704

work page
[32]

Chen T, Ghasemi A, Zhang J, Shi L, Tagay Z, Chen Y , Chen L, Choi E S, Jaime M, Lee M, Hao Y , Cao H, Winn B, Podlesnyak A A, Pa- jerowski D M, Zhong R, Xu X, Armitage N P, Cava R and Broholm C (2024), arXiv:2402.15869 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

Cui Y , Wu Z, Sun Z, Du K, Luo J, Li S, Yang J, Wang J, Zhou R, Chen Q, Kohama Y , Miyata A, Yang Z, Yu R and Yu W (2025), arXiv:2509.26151 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[34]

Singh R R P and Elstner N 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.81(21) 4732–4735

work page
[35]

Stre ˇcka J, Karˇlov´a K, Baliha V and Derzhko O 2018Phys. Rev. B98(17) 174426

work page
[36]

Chen G V 2024Phys. Rev. Lett.133(13) 136703

work page
[37]

Zhong R, Guo S, Nguyen L T and Cava R J 2020Phys. Rev. B102(22) 224430

work page
[38]

Mater.367

Xu X, Chen T, Wang H, Xie W, Broholm C L and Cava R J 2024Chem. Mater.367

work page
[39]

Yue L, Lu Z, Yan K, Wang L, Guo S, Guo R, Chen P, Chen X and Mei J W 2024Phys. Rev. B109(21) 214430

work page
[40]

Li Z R, Ouyang Z W, Cao J J, Wang L, Wang Z X, Xia Z C and Wang J F 2024Phys. Rev. B109(22) 224413

work page
[41]

Kawamura H 1992J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.611299–1325

work page
[42]

Wu F Y 1982Rev. Mod. Phys.54(1) 235–268

work page
[43]

Pomeranchuk I 1950Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz2016

work page
[44]

Lee D M 1997Rev. Mod. Phys.69(3) 645–666

work page
[45]

Richardson R C 1997Rev. Mod. Phys.69(3) 683–690

work page
[46]

Chen J L, Fan Z, Zhan B, Hu J, Liu T, Ji J, Wang K, Liao H J and Xiang T 2025Phys. Rev. B112(12) 125130

work page
[47]

[39, 40, 48]

See Supplemental Material for the crystal structure and magnetic in- teractions, the low-temperature NMR spectra in the ordered phase, the NMR spectral simulation, the staggered magnetic moments in the UUD phase, and the theoretical modeling and the transition line between the UUD and the supersolid V phase, which include Refs. [39, 40, 48]

work page
[48]

Li Z R, Wang L, Cao J J, Dong C, Tian Z M, Wang Z X, Xia Z C, Nojiri H and Ouyang Z W 2025Phys. Rev. B112(9) 094456

work page