Quenched Dynamics of Artificial Spin Ice: Coarsening versus Kibble-Zurek

A. del Campo; A. Libal; C. J. O. Reichhardt; C. Nisoli; C. Reichhardt

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quenched Dynamics of Artificial Spin Ice: Coarsening versus Kibble-Zurek

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 For deep quenches of square ice, defect density falls as the inverse square root of quench time, and the mechanism is coarsening, not Kibble-Zurek.

desk verdict Clean simulation result, but the case for coarsening over Kibble-Zurek rests on an unverified universality class for the colloidal model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05328 v1 pith:5342TP44 submitted 2019-08-14 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mes-hall

A. Libal , A. del Campo , C. Nisoli , C. Reichhardt , C. J. O. Reichhardt This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords artificialspiniceKibble-Zurekmechanismcriticalcoarseningquenchdynamicstopologicaldefectscolloidalsquarehexagonalmonopoles

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

Colloidal square ice, a lattice of interacting magnetic colloids that mimic frustrated spins, is quenched from a disordered liquid into an ordered ground state at different sweep rates. The paper establishes that for deep quenches the density of residual ice-rule violations decays as a power law, $\rho_d \sim \tau_Q^{-1/2}$, with $\tau_Q$ the quench duration. It then argues this scaling is produced by critical coarsening, the growth and annihilation of ordered domains and their bounding defects, rather than by the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, because the measured exponents disagree with the 2D Ising predictions. The claim matters because artificial spin ices are one of the few systems where both the defects and their dynamics can be imaged directly, making the distinction between competing quench scenarios testable in the laboratory.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the vertex types of square ice, labeled by the number of colloids pointing toward a vertex: $N_0,N_4$ double monopoles, $N_1,N_3$ monopoles, biased $N_{2,\mathrm{biased}}$, and ground-state $N_{2,\mathrm{gs}}$; non-ground-state vertices are the defects whose density is measured. The argument runs on scaling comparisons: the measured defect-density exponent $\beta \simeq 1/2$ and time-rescaling exponent $\alpha=3/4$ are checked against the Kibble-Zurek formulas $\beta = D\nu/(1+z\nu)$ and $\alpha = z\nu/(1+z\nu)$ for the 2D Ising class ($\nu=1$, $z=2$, $D=2$), each predicting $2/3$. The coarsening alternative uses the standard growth law $R(t)\sim t^{1/z}$ for ordered regions to say that defect density should fall as $1/R(t)$, giving $\rho_d\sim \tau_Q^{-1/2}$.

What would settle it

Measure the time-resolved domain radius $R(t)$ directly in the same colloidal square-ice simulations or experiments during the ordered-phase part of the quench. If $R(t)$ does not grow as $t^{1/2}$, or if the defect density is not proportional to $1/R(t)$, the coarsening attribution for $\rho_d\sim \tau_Q^{-1/2}$ is unsupported. Alternatively, run quenches much faster than 10 s: if the defect density then crosses to the $2/3$ exponent, the coarsening-only interpretation would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In square colloidal ice, quenches from $B=0$ to $B=40$ mT leave a fraction $N_{ngs}/N$ of non-ground-state vertices, monopoles and other ice-rule violations, that decreases with quench duration. Fitting $N_{ngs}/N \sim \tau_Q^{-\beta}$ at fixed field gives $\beta \simeq 0.45$ for fields above about 12 mT, close to $1/2$, while the Kibble-Zurek mechanism for the 2D Ising universality class ($\nu=1$, $z=2$, $D=2$) predicts $\beta = D\nu/(1+z\nu)=2/3$. A rescaling collapse of the time traces uses exponent $\alpha=3/4$, also distinct from the KZ value $z\nu/(1+z\nu)=2/3$. The paper concludes that the defect population is governed by coarsening: after crossing the transition, ordered domains grow as $R(t)\sim t^{1/z}$ with $z=2$, the defect density tracks $1/R(t)$, and defect-defect Coulomb interactions are strong enough to keep annihilating defects during the ordered-phase part of the quench, which violates the KZ adiabatic-impulse assumption.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that after the transition the ordered patches grow in size as the square root of time and the defect count falls as one over that patch size, so the measured exponent can be read as coarsening; the paper does not measure the patch growth directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deep quenches in colloidal square ice produce a defect density that follows $\rho_d \sim \tau_Q^{-1/2}$ over the experimentally accessible range of quench times from 10 to 6000 s.
Because the 2D Ising Kibble-Zurek prediction is $2/3$, square-ice systems with long-ranged monopole interactions should show the coarsening exponent rather than the KZ exponent.
Quenches ending close to the critical field, between about 10 and 12 mT, should show a crossover regime with smaller exponents between 0.2 and 0.3, where coarsening and Kibble-Zurek compete.
Hexagonal colloidal ice, which lacks an ordering transition, should show no power-law decay of defects with quench rate, since its ice-rule violations are not topologically protected and can disappear individually.
Magnetic nanoisland or superconducting artificial ices with weaker defect-defect interactions, or much faster quenches, may access a genuine Kibble-Zurek regime.

Reading between the lines

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

If the coarsening attribution holds, the $\tau_Q^{-1/2}$ defect scaling should be largely independent of the microscopic realization of square ice, provided the monopole interactions remain long-ranged; a test would be to compare colloid, nanomagnetic, and superconducting square ices at matched reduced quench rates.
The unexplained time-rescaling exponent $\alpha=3/4$ may carry information beyond simple domain growth; measuring the domain-size distribution $P(R,t)$ directly during quenches could reveal whether the collapse reflects growing correlations, active annihilation, or the approach to the critical point.
A natural extension is to inject controlled quenched disorder: if disorder slows monopole motion more than it slows domain growth, the coarsening exponent should cross over toward logarithmic decay and the Kibble-Zurek regime might become visible at slower quench rates.
The square-versus-hexagonal contrast suggests that quench-protocol experiments in other frustrated geometries could use the presence or absence of a power-law defect density as a probe of whether the system has a true ordering critical point.

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

Take a look at this one before it goes anywhere: the simulation result is clean, but the headline claim that coarsening rules out Kibble-Zurek in colloidal square ice is shakier than the abstract says. The test they run is the obvious one—quench magnetic field at different rates, count non-ground-state vertices—and the data are nice. For deep quenches they see rho_d ~ tau_Q^{-1/2}, time-collapse with alpha = 0.75, and the hexagonal ice shows no power law, which is a nice sanity check. The paper does a real service by putting the two mechanisms side by side in a particle model where dynamics are physical rather than Monte Carlo moves.

The soft spot is the KZ comparison. They compute KZ predictions using nu=1 and z=2 for the square ice, citing the magnetic square ice, but the colloidal model has long-range interactions and the authors themselves say it can only be mapped onto the magnetic ice at equilibrium. The dynamic exponent z is not measured. That matters: with nu≈0.9 and z≈3.3, KZ would predict alpha = z nu/(1+z nu) ≈ 0.75 and beta = 2 nu/(1+z nu) ≈ 0.45, matching their numbers almost exactly. I don't know if those exponents are right for this model, but the point is the paper doesn't establish the baseline it's rejecting. The coarsening story is also indirect. They assume R(t) ~ t^{1/2} and that the defect density goes like 1/R(t), but they never measure R(t). And alpha = 0.75 is just a fit, not a prediction of coarsening theory. Minor issues: no error bars on the exponents, and Nngs includes ice-rule-obeying N2,biased vertices, so it's not purely topological.

So the paper is a solid empirical study with an interpretation that goes a step beyond the evidence. It deserves a serious referee, because the question is important and the data are real, but a referee should push for direct measurement of domain growth and a careful treatment of the model's equilibrium and dynamic exponents. I'd read it with my group and use it as a cautionary example, but I wouldn't cite it as evidence for coarsening over KZ until those gaps are closed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular-dynamics simulations of quenches in colloidal square and hexagonal artificial spin ice, sweeping the magnetic field from B=0 to B=40 mT at ramp durations tau_Q between 10 and 6000 s. For square ice, the fraction of non-ground-state vertices Nngs/N at fixed final fields decays as a power law in tau_Q for fields above about 12 mT, with fitted exponent beta approximately 0.45, and the full Nngs/N-versus-time curves collapse when time is rescaled by tau_Q^0.75. The authors interpret these observations as evidence that deep quenches are governed by critical coarsening rather than by the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, because the 2D Ising KZ predictions for both exponents are 2/3. In the hexagonal ice, no power-law defect decay is found, which is attributed to the absence of a true ordering transition. The paper concludes that the quenched square ice provides a test bed for coarsening-dominated defect dynamics.

Significance. If the conclusion is correct, this is a valuable contribution to nonequilibrium dynamics in artificial spin ice and to the KZ-versus-coarsening debate: it is a particle-resolved MD study with 100 realizations per ramp over nearly three decades in tau_Q, directly mimicking an experimentally realizable colloidal system, and it includes the hexagonal ice as a control. The empirical scaling results and the defect-vertex characterization are strengths. The interpretation is, however, currently not secure because the KZ null hypothesis is computed with 2D Ising exponents that are assumed rather than measured for the colloidal model, the final defect density is measured after substantial post-transition dynamics, and the coarsening attribution is not verified by direct domain-growth measurements. These gaps are central to the paper's headline conclusion.

major comments (3)

[Kibble-Zurek Mechanism (p. 3)] The rejection of the KZ mechanism rests on comparing the measured exponents alpha=0.75 and beta approximately 0.45 with the 2D Ising predictions z*nu/(1+z*nu)=2/3 and D*nu/(1+z*nu)=2/3. The manuscript assumes nu=1 and z=2 for the colloidal square ice, but on p. 4 it states that the colloidal ice can only be mapped exactly into a magnetic square ice at equilibrium and that its out-of-equilibrium kinetics may differ. Static universality does not fix the dynamic exponent, and Ref. [39] is an equilibrium result that cannot establish z=2 for this particle-based model. If the equilibrium critical point of this model had nu approximately 0.9 and z approximately 3.3, the KZ predictions would be z*nu/(1+z*nu)=0.75 and 2*nu/(1+z*nu)=0.45, matching the reported values almost exactly. The manuscript must therefore measure, or convincingly bound, nu and z for the colloidal model, or else the data cannot be said to rule out KZ.
[Results, Kibble-Zurek paragraph (p. 4)] The positive claim that coarsening governs the defect density is not directly tested. The paper assumes ordered regions grow as R(t) approximately t^(1/z) with z=2 and that rho_d is approximately 1/R(t), but no measurement of R(t) is presented, and the collapse exponent alpha=0.75 is an empirical fit rather than a coarsening prediction. In addition, the measured Nngs/N is the final value at B=40 mT, after the system has spent considerable time on the ordered side of the transition; a KZ test based on freeze-out scaling would require either measuring the defect density at the freeze-out time or explicitly accounting for the subsequent coarsening. A direct measurement of domain growth and a demonstration that Nngs*R(t) stays constant, or a quantitative coarsening prediction for rho_d(tau_Q), is needed before the claim that coarsening governs can be asserted.
[Abstract, Results (Fig. 4d), Conclusion] The central scaling statement is given as rho_d proportional to tau_Q^(-1/2) in the abstract and conclusion, while the fitted exponent reported in the text and in Fig. 4(d) is beta=0.45. This discrepancy matters because the KZ-versus-coarsening discrimination is exponent-based. Please report the fitted exponent with its uncertainty and justify any rounding to 1/2; if 0.45 is the best estimate, the paper should state rho_d proportional to tau_Q^(-0.45).

minor comments (4)

[Conclusion (p. 5)] The phrase 'the university class of the square ice' should read 'universality class.'
[Results, Fig. 4(d)] Figure 4(d) shows exponents for B<9 mT even though the text says the system does not order for B<9 mT; please clarify whether these small-field exponents are meaningful or are fitting artifacts.
[Hexagonal system (p. 5)] The inset of Fig. 6 reports a collapse with alpha=0.88 for a system with no critical point; the text does not explain why a clean time-rescaling collapse is expected in a crossover regime, and a sentence on this point would help the reader.
[Introduction (p. 2)] Minor grammar: 'there is a underlying second-order phase transition' should be 'there is an underlying second-order phase transition.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured quench exponents are compared against external KZ and coarsening predictions, not derived from them.

full rationale

The central result, rho_d ∝ tau_Q^{-1/2}, is obtained by fitting the simulated defect density versus quench time in Fig. 4(c); it is a measurement, not an output of the coarsening or KZ formulas. The KZ null hypothesis is constructed from stated external inputs: the paper takes the square ice to be in the 2D Ising universality class with nu=1 and z=2, citing Fan and Wu [39], and computes z*nu/(1+z*nu)=2/3 and D*nu/(1+z*nu)=2/3. The measured alpha=3/4 and beta≈0.45 are then compared with those fixed numbers. Similarly, the coarsening expectation is quoted from Hohenberg and Halperin [40] (R(t)∝t^{1/z}, z=2 for Ising) and the qualitative relation rho_d∝1/R(t); neither is fitted from the same data and then renamed a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Refs. [14,35,43]) support the colloidal model, the earlier observation of monopole Coulomb dynamics, and the equilibrium-mapping caveat; none of them supplies a uniqueness theorem or a fitted parameter that forces the quench scaling, and the Methods section gives the full simulation parameters independently. The genuine caveat is a correctness risk, not circularity: the rejection of KZ depends on the assumed Ising values nu=1, z=2 for this particle-based model, and the paper itself notes that the colloidal square ice can only be mapped exactly at equilibrium. If the relevant equilibrium exponents were instead nu≈0.9 and z≈3.3, KZ would predict alpha=z*nu/(1+z*nu)=0.75 and beta=2*nu/(1+z*nu)=0.45, matching the data; the paper does not measure nu and z. This makes the KZ-versus-coarsening discrimination less secure, but the measured exponents are not defined in terms of the conclusion, so the derivation is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulation model (assumed to represent colloidal ASI), on the universality class assignment used to compute KZ predictions, and on an assumed coarsening growth law used to interpret the measured exponent. The only fitted numerical input for the central analysis is the critical field B_c = 9 mT; the exponents alpha and beta are measured outputs, not free parameters.

free parameters (1)

B_c (critical magnetic field) = 9 mT
Stated as the critical field at which the equilibrium system orders into a defect-free ground state. The paper does not show the measurement or fit that determines this value; it is used to separate ordered and disordered regimes and to define the quench crossing.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The overdamped Langevin equation with harmonic double-well traps and r^{-4} repulsive colloid interactions faithfully represents the experimental colloidal artificial spin ice dynamics.
Used throughout the Methods section to generate all simulation data; the validity of the model is asserted rather than benchmarked against experimental time traces.
domain assumption The equilibrium order-disorder transition of the colloidal square ice belongs to the 2D Ising universality class with nu = 1 and z = 2.
Invoked in the Results section to compute Kibble-Zurek exponents (z*nu/(1+z*nu) = 2/3, D*nu/(1+z*nu) = 2/3). The paper later notes that the colloidal system maps to a magnetic square ice only approximately at equilibrium, which weakens this assumption for out-of-equilibrium kinetics.
ad hoc to paper In the coarsening regime, the defect density is proportional to 1/R(t) where the ordered region radius R(t) grows as t^{1/z} with z = 2.
Used to interpret the measured beta ~ 1/2 as evidence for critical coarsening. The paper does not measure R(t) or verify this growth law directly; it is an assumed scaling relation introduced in the Results paragraph beginning 'We note that for coarsening dynamics near a critical point'.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quenched Dynamics of Artificial Spin Ice: Coarsening versus Kibble-Zurek." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5342TP44

@misc{pith2026190805328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quenched Dynamics of Artificial Spin Ice: Coarsening versus Kibble-Zurek},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5342TP44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05328}
}

read the original abstract

Artificial spin ices are ideal frustrated model systems in which to explore or design emergent phenomena with unprecedented characterization of the constituent degrees of freedom. In square spin ice, violations of the ice rule are topological excitations essential to the kinetics of the system, providing an ideal testbed for studying the dynamics of such defects under varied quench rates. In this work we describe the first test of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism and critical coarsening in colloidal square and colloidal hexagonal ice under quenches from a weakly interacting liquid state into a strongly interacting regime. As expected, for infinitely slow quenches, the system is defect free, while for increasing quench rate, an increasing number of defects remain in the sample. For square ice, we find regimes in which the defect population decreases as a power law with decreasing quench rate. A detailed scaling analysis shows that for a wide range of parameters, including quench rates that are accessible by experiments, the behavior is described by critical coarsening rather than by the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, since the defect-defect interactions are long ranged. For quenches closer to the critical point, however, there can be a competition between the two mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05328 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Schematic of the square ice system. Lozenges are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Coarsening in the square ice system. Snapshots of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Transition from the ordered to the disordered state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Transition in the hexagonal ASI. Snapshots of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Measure of the transition in the hexagonal ASI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Transition between ground states in square anisotropic artificial colloidal ice
cond-mat.soft 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In square artificial colloidal ice, fast field rotation reaches the anisotropic 4-in/4-out ground state by diffusionless synchronized flips, while slow rotation traps the system in a partially ordered metastable state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[39]

Fan and F

C. Fan and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. 179, 560 (1969)

work page 1969
[1]

R. F. Wang, C. Nisoli, R. S. Freitas, J. Li, W. McConville, B. J. Cooley, M. S. Lund, N. Samarth, C. Leighton, V. H. Crespi, et al., Nature (London) 439, 303 (2006)

work page 2006
[2]

Nisoli, R

C. Nisoli, R. Moessner, and P. Schiﬀer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1473 (2013)

work page 2013
[3]

Gilbert, C

I. Gilbert, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiﬀer, Phys. Today 69, 54 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Y. Qi, T. Brintlinger, and J. Cumings, Phys. Rev. B 77, 094418 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

Ladak, D

S. Ladak, D. Read, G. Perkins, L. Cohen, and W. Bran- ford, Nature Phys. 6, 359 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

Mengotti, L

E. Mengotti, L. J. Heyderman, A. F. Rodr´ ıguez, F. Nolt- ing, R. V. H¨ ugli, and H.-B. Braun, Nature Phys. 7, 68 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

Zhang, I

S. Zhang, I. Gilbert, C. Nisoli, G.-W. Chern, M. J. Er- ickson, L. O’Brien, C. Leighton, P. E. Lammert, V. H. Crespi, and P. Schiﬀer, Nature (London)500, 553 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 51 references

[8]

J. P. Morgan, A.Stein, S. Langridge, and C. H. Marrows, Nature Phys. 7, 75 (2011), URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nphys1853

2011 doi
[9]

Wang, Z.-L

Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, A. Snezhko, J. Xu, L. Ocola, R. Divan, J. Pearson, G. Crabtree, and W.-K. Kwok, Science 352, 962 (2016)

2016
[10]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 228302 (2006). 7

2006
[11]

Ortiz-Ambriz and P

A. Ortiz-Ambriz and P. Tierno, Nature Commun. 7, 10575 (2016), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms10575

2016
[12]

Loehr, A

J. Loehr, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, and P. Tierno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 168001 (2016)

2016
[13]

D. Y. Lee and P. Tierno, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 112601 (2018)

2018
[14]

Lib´ al, D

A. Lib´ al, D. Y. Lee, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Reichhardt, C. J. O. Reichhardt, P. Tierno, and C. Nisoli, Nature Commun. 9, 4146 (2018)

2018
[15]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. J. O. Reichhardt, and C. Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 237004 (2009)

2009
[16]

M. L. Latimer, G. R. Berdiyorov, Z. L. Xiao, F. M. Peeters, and W. K. Kwok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 067001 (2013)

2013
[17]

Trastoy, M

J. Trastoy, M. Malnou, C. Ulysse, R. Bernard, N. Bergeal, G. Faini, J. Lesueur, J. Briatico, and J. E. Villegas, Nature Nanotechnol. 9, 710 (2014)

2014
[18]

Xue, J.-Y

C. Xue, J.-Y. Ge, A. He, V. S. Zharinov, V. V. Moshchalkov, Y. H. Zhou, A. V. Silhanek, and J. V. de Vondel, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024510 (2017)

2017
[19]

Y.-L. Wang, X. Ma, J. Xu, Z.-L. Xiao, A. Snezhko, R. Di- van, L. E. Ocola, J. E. Pearson, B. Janko, and W.-K. Kwok, Nature Nanotechnol. 13, 560 (2018)

2018
[20]

M¨ oller and R

G. M¨ oller and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 237202 (2006)

2006
[21]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, and C. Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 027204 (2018)

2018
[22]

Sendetskyi, V

O. Sendetskyi, V. Scagnoli, N. Leo, L. Anghinolﬁ, A. Al- berca, J. L¨ uning, U. Staub, P. M. Derlet, and L. J. Hey- derman, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214430 (2019)

2019
[23]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[24]

W. H. Zurek, Nature (London) 317, 505 (1985)

1985
[25]

Monaco, J

R. Monaco, J. Mygind, R. J. Rivers, and V. P. Koshelets, Phys. Rev. B 80, 180501(R) (2009)

2009
[26]

M. J. Bowick, L. Chandar, E. A. Schiﬀ, and A. M. Sri- vastava, Science 263, 943 (1994)

1994
[27]

C. N. Weiler, T. W. Neely, D. R. Scherer, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Nature (London) 455, 948 (2008)

2008
[28]

Lamporesi, S

G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Seraﬁni, F. Dalfovo, and G. Ferrari, Nature Physics 9, 656 (2013), URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2734

2013 doi
[29]

Navon, A

N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science 347, 167 (2015)

2015
[30]

S. Ulm, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, C. Deg¨ unther, S. T. Dawkins, U. G. Poschinger, R. Nigmatullin, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, F. Schmidt-Kaler, et al., Nature Commun. 4, 2290 (2013)

2013
[31]

K. Pyka, J. Keller, H. L. Partner, R. Nigmatullin, T. Burgermeister, D. M. Meier, K. Kuhlmann, A. Ret- zker, M. B. Plenio, W. H. Zurek, et al., Nature Commun. 4, 2291 (2013)

2013
[32]

S. M. Griﬃn, M. Lilienblum, K. T. Delaney, Y. Kumagai, M. Fiebig, and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041022 (2012)

2012
[33]

del Campo and W

A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430018 (2014)

2014
[34]

Biroli, L

G. Biroli, L. F. Cugliandolo, and A. Sicilia, Phys. Rev. E 81, 050101(R) (2010)

2010
[35]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, and C. Reichhardt, Sci. Rep. 7, 651 (2017)

2017
[36]

C. W. Liu, A. Polkovinkov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys.Rev. B 89, 054307 (2014)

2014
[37]

Budrikis, K

Z. Budrikis, K. L. Livesey, J. P. Morgan, J. Akerman, A. Stein, S. Langridge, C. H. Marrows, and R. L. Stamps, New J. Phys. 14, 035014 (2012)

2012
[38]

Drisko, T

J. Drisko, T. Marsh, and J. Cumings, Nature Commun. 8, 14009 (2017)

2017
[40]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

1977
[41]

Wu, Physical Review Letters 22, 1174 (1969)

F. Wu, Physical Review Letters 22, 1174 (1969)

1969
[42]

Nisoli, New Journal of Physics 16, 113049 (2014)

C. Nisoli, New Journal of Physics 16, 113049 (2014)

2014
[43]

Nisoli, Phys

C. Nisoli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 167205 (2018)

2018
[44]

Levis, L

D. Levis, L. F. Cugliandolo, L. Foini, and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 207206 (2013)

2013
[45]

Kapaklis, U

V. Kapaklis, U. B. Arnalds, A. Farhan, R. V. Chopdekar, A. Balan, A. Scholl, L. J. Heyderman, and B. Hj¨ orvarsson, Nature Nanotechnol.9, 514 (2014)

2014
[46]

Anghinolﬁ, H

L. Anghinolﬁ, H. Luetkens, J. Perron, M. G. Flokstra, O. Sendetskyi, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, P. M. Derlet, S. L. Lee, and L. J. Heyderman, Nature Commun. 6, 8278 (2015)

2015
[47]

Farhan, C

A. Farhan, C. F. Petersen, S. Dhuey, L. Anghinolﬁ, Q. H. Qin, M. Saccone, S. Velten, C. Wuth, S. Gliga, P. Mel- lado, et al., Nature Commun. 8, 995 (2017)

2017
[48]

Y. Lao, F. Caravelli, M. Sheikh, J. Sklenar, D. Gardeaza- bal, J. D. Watts, A. M. Albrecht, A. Scholl, K. Dahmen, C. Nisoli, et al., Nature Phys. 14, 723 (2018)

2018
[49]

Sklenar, Y

J. Sklenar, Y. Lao, A. Albrecht, J. D. Watts, C. Nisoli, G.-W. Chern, and P. Schiﬀer, Nature Phys. 15, 191 (2019)

2019
[50]

Perrin, B

Y. Perrin, B. Canals, and N. Rougemaille, Nature (Lon- don) 540, 410 (2016)

2016
[51]

Farhan, M

A. Farhan, M. Saccone, C. F. Petersen, S. Dhuey, R. V. Chopdekar, Y.-L. Huang, N. Kent, Z. Chen, M. J. Alava, T. Lippert, et al., Sci. Adv. 5, 6380 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [39]

Fan and F

C. Fan and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. 179, 560 (1969)

work page 1969

[2] [1]

R. F. Wang, C. Nisoli, R. S. Freitas, J. Li, W. McConville, B. J. Cooley, M. S. Lund, N. Samarth, C. Leighton, V. H. Crespi, et al., Nature (London) 439, 303 (2006)

work page 2006

[3] [2]

Nisoli, R

C. Nisoli, R. Moessner, and P. Schiﬀer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1473 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [3]

Gilbert, C

I. Gilbert, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiﬀer, Phys. Today 69, 54 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [4]

Y. Qi, T. Brintlinger, and J. Cumings, Phys. Rev. B 77, 094418 (2008)

work page 2008

[6] [5]

Ladak, D

S. Ladak, D. Read, G. Perkins, L. Cohen, and W. Bran- ford, Nature Phys. 6, 359 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Mengotti, L

E. Mengotti, L. J. Heyderman, A. F. Rodr´ ıguez, F. Nolt- ing, R. V. H¨ ugli, and H.-B. Braun, Nature Phys. 7, 68 (2011)

work page 2011

[8] [7]

Zhang, I

S. Zhang, I. Gilbert, C. Nisoli, G.-W. Chern, M. J. Er- ickson, L. O’Brien, C. Leighton, P. E. Lammert, V. H. Crespi, and P. Schiﬀer, Nature (London)500, 553 (2013)

work page 2013