Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Nonthermal order by disorder

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Nonthermal fluctuations can trap an order parameter in a state that has no equilibrium counterpart.

desk verdict A clean proof-of-principle that anisotropic nonthermal fluctuations can transiently stabilize states that are not equilibrium minima; the main caveat is the uncontrolled Gaussian closure, but the paper is honest about it and deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02616 v2 pith:LDS4XX7M submitted 2024-12-03 cond-mat.str-el

Francesco Grandi , Antonio Picano , Ronny Thomale , Dante M. Kennes , Martin Eckstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 64.60.-i05.70.Ln
keywords nonthermalorderbydisorderquenchdynamicsGinzburg-LandautheoryfluctuationrenormalizationhiddenstatesintertwinedordersmodelA
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

After an ultrafast quench, the slow order-parameter fields of a material can be trapped for a while in an ordered configuration that is not even a local minimum of the equilibrium free energy. The paper proves this is possible in a minimal two-order-parameter Ginzburg-Landau theory, provided the two fields have different stiffnesses or relaxation rates, so that the quench leaves an anisotropic bath of fluctuations. Those nonthermal fluctuations renormalize the effective free-energy landscape and open a new transient minimum; the trapped order, in turn, changes the fluctuation spectrum, so order and fluctuations keep each other alive until the fluctuations decay. The authors call this nonthermal order by disorder, a nonequilibrium analogue of equilibrium order-by-disorder selection, and argue it may underlie light-induced hidden states in cuprates, kagome metals, and orbitally ordered compounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fluctuation-renormalized effective potential $\bar{F} = \bar{F}_0 + \bar{F}_{\mathrm{fl}}$ of Eq. (9), whose derivative by construction reproduces the equation of motion for the average order parameter. The fluctuation correction $\bar{F}_{\mathrm{fl}}$ is built from the fluctuation force constants $r^{\mathrm{fl}}_{\alpha\beta}$ of Eq. (7), which depend on the integrated fluctuation populations $n_{\alpha\beta}(t)=\int D_{\alpha\beta}(k,t)\,dk/(2\pi)^d$. The dynamics closes under the Gaussian approximation: Wick's theorem turns the average-field equation into Eq. (6) and the correlation functions into Eq. (15), with an effective quadratic coefficient $r^{\mathrm{eff}}_{\alpha\beta}=\bar{r}_{\alpha\beta}+r^{\mathrm{fl}}_{\alpha\beta}$. The load-bearing asymmetry is the combination of unequal stiffnesses $K_\alpha$ and unequal relaxation rates $\Gamma_\alpha$, which makes $n_{11}\neq n_{22}$ after the quench; the quartic anharmonic terms then make the mass term for the fluctuations depend self-consistently on $\bar{\phi}$, so order and fluctuations lock into a transiently stable configuration.

What would settle it

Simulate the same two-order-parameter Langevin dynamics on a finite lattice without the Gaussian closure, for example by direct stochastic sampling of the noise, and check whether the plateau at $R\approx 3.85$, $\varphi\approx\pi/2$ (or $R\approx 3$, $\varphi\approx\pi/2$) still appears after the quench; if the plateau disappears, the trap was created by the Gaussian closure. Alternatively, measure the momentum-resolved fluctuation anisotropy with time-resolved resonant elastic x-ray scattering during the plateau: the mechanism requires $D_{11}$ and $D_{22}$ to be distinctly elongated along the softer direction, so the absence of that anisotropy would rule out nonthermal order by disorder.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a genuine nonequilibrium drive can transiently stabilize an ordered state even when the equilibrium free energy has no metastable minima at all. Working with two coupled order parameters $\bar{\phi}_1,\bar{\phi}_2$ governed by a $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric Landau potential plus a gradient stiffness, the authors show that after a temperature quench the fluctuation-renormalized effective potential $\bar{F}(\bar{\phi}_1,\bar{\phi}_2)$ develops minima that are absent from the bare potential $V$: in the cooperative case the order parameter is trapped at $R\approx 3.85$, $\varphi\approx\pi/2$, and in the almost-competitive case at $R\approx 3$, $\varphi\approx\pi/2$. The trap appears only when the quench produces an anisotropic fluctuation population, here $n_{11}>n_{22}$, realized by making the stiffnesses and relaxation rates of the two fields unequal ($K_1<K_2$, $\Gamma_1>\Gamma_2$). Because the quartic coupling makes the fluctuation mass term depend on $\bar{\phi}$ itself, the trapped order and the anisotropic fluctuations feed back on each other and mutually stabilize during a finite time window before the equilibrium state is recovered. The same mechanism is demonstrated in a $C_4$-symmetric compass-model continuum theory, where a coherent pulse first breaks the $C_4$ symmetry and a subsequent quench stabilizes the nonthermal order.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the probability distribution of the fluctuating order-parameter fields stays Gaussian around its average, so all fluctuation effects are captured by two-point correlations; if non-Gaussian correlations grow after the quench, the transient minima could be an artifact of the closure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pure temperature quench can create a transient ordered state in a two-order-parameter system even though the equilibrium landscape has no local minima, so hidden states need not be pre-existing metastable states.
  • The transient state is self-stabilizing: during the plateau time window, the nonthermal fluctuations and the nonthermal order renormalize each other's mass terms and delay the return to equilibrium.
  • The mechanism works for cooperative, almost-competitive, and symmetry-lowered $C_4$ setups, and the required ingredient is only an anisotropy in stiffness and/or relaxation, making it a generic route to nonthermal order.
  • The momentum-space signature is an anisotropic, elongated distribution of the correlation functions $D_{11}(k,t)$ and $D_{22}(k,t)$, observable with time-resolved resonant elastic x-ray scattering or ultrafast transmission electron microscopy.
  • For materials with intertwined orders, the model predicts which order parameter is transiently enhanced based on the sign of the stiffness and relaxation-rate asymmetry, connecting to light-induced superconductivity and density-wave experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian closure is relaxed, the plateau lifetime and even its existence could change; a stochastic-lattice simulation would tell whether the trap survives beyond Gaussian statistics.
  • The same effective-potential mechanism should generalize to more than two coupled order parameters or to vector order parameters with anisotropic stiffness, where the transient landscape could contain several competing nonthermal minima.
  • The NOBD picture reframes hidden-state searches: instead of mapping only the minima of the equilibrium free energy, experiments should look for transient anisotropic fluctuation distributions, since those are what define and stabilize the nonthermal state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the relaxational dynamics of a two-component Ginzburg-Landau model with Z2×Z2 or C4-symmetric potential, coupled to its own order-parameter fluctuations through a Gaussian closure. The equations of motion for the homogeneous averages φ̄α and the correlation functions Dαβ(k,t) are solved numerically after an incoherent temperature quench (and, in one case, a coherent drive). The authors define an effective potential F̄(φ̄1,φ̄2) whose gradient reproduces the average-field dynamics at fixed fluctuation content, and show that anisotropic fluctuations n11>n22, caused by different stiffnesses or relaxation rates of the two order parameters, renormalize F̄ such that a transient minimum appears at values such as R≈3.85, φ≈π/2, which are not minima of the bare equilibrium potential. The state persists as a plateau in the dynamics, leading the authors to propose a nonequilibrium order-by-disorder mechanism (NOBD). The final sections discuss relevance for photoinduced superconductivity, density-wave order, and orbital systems.

Significance. If the central claim survives a test of the Gaussian closure, the paper provides a conceptually new and rather general mechanism for transient nonthermal order that does not rely on pre-existing metastable states. The connection to order-by-disorder is well motivated, and the explicit numerical demonstrations for three model situations are useful. The manuscript is clearly written and the equations are internally consistent; the authors are transparent about the Gaussian approximation and its lack of a small parameter. The main weakness is that the transient minima are generated by precisely the fluctuation variables that are truncated at Gaussian order, and no non-Gaussian benchmark or error estimate is provided. Thus, while the ideas are attractive, the proof of principle remains conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (15); Results, Figs. 4-9] The central result rests entirely on the Gaussian closure for the probability distribution P[ϕ](t). In the Methods, the authors state that Wick's theorem is used to obtain Eq. (15) and that the large-N expansion is not performed because N=2 and the potentials lack continuous symmetry. Since the transient minima in Figs. 4-9 arise solely through the fluctuation-induced coefficients rfl_αβ in Eq. (7), which are linear in the two-point functions nαβ(t), the closure is load-bearing. The quartic couplings in the model are not small (e.g., u2R^4/4 ~ 64 for R~4), so there is no perturbative control. I ask the authors to provide a quantitative test of the closure, for example by numerically integrating the full Langevin dynamics in a reduced geometry or a few-mode truncation, or by comparing with a cumulant truncation that retains fourth-order cumulants. In the absence of such a test, the possibility remains that the plateau at φ≈π/2 is an artifact of the Gaussian approximation. A discussion of the expected magnitude of non-Gaussian correlations in the regime of Figs. 4-9 would be the minimum response.
  2. [Effective potential, Eq. (9)] The effective potential F̄ is defined so that its gradient reproduces the equations of motion, with the fluctuation coefficients rfl_αβ(t) evaluated at the current time. Thus F̄ is a time-dependent pseudo-potential, not a true free energy functional; any point where the dynamics is slow is, by construction, a stationary point of F̄ at that instant. The manuscript should state this explicitly and qualify statements such as 'transient free energy minima' and 'stabilization of ordered states at transient free energy minima' in the abstract and introduction as referring to the instantaneous pseudo-potential. The physical effect is the long-lived dynamical plateau in the coupled φ̄-n dynamics, not the existence of a minimum of an independently defined free energy. This clarification is important because the significance claim hinges on the contrast with equilibrium free-energy minima.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Almost competitive order section and caption of Fig. 6] The text states 'the critical value r2,0/r1,0 = u2/(2u1 − u2)'; with the given parameters r2,0=12, r1,0=15, u1=0.9, u2=1.0, the left side is 0.8 while u2/(2u1−u2)=1.25. The correct critical condition for the dominant order is r1,0/r2,0 = u2/(2u1−u2), or equivalently r2,0/r1,0 = (2u1−u2)/u2. Please correct the formula in the main text and in the caption of Fig. 6.
  2. [Methods] The numerical integration of Eqs. (6) and (15) is not described. Please specify the time-stepping scheme, the discretization of the k-integration, the treatment of the ultraviolet cutoff Λc, and the convergence checks (e.g., dependence on time step and k-grid).
  3. [Isotropic fluctuations section, caption of Fig. 3] The caption's description of the line styles ('solid (dotted) lines are characterized by Γ=0.5 (Γ=0.9)') is ambiguous because the text also refers to dotted gray and green lines. Please label the curves directly or use a more explicit legend.
  4. [C4 model, Eq. (13)] The notation ¯Ki,α = rα,0 K δ_{i,α} is confusing because the indices i and α label different spaces. Consider writing the stiffness explicitly as K(ϕ1,ϕ2) = (K/2)[r1,0 (∂1ϕ1)^2 + r2,0 (∂2ϕ2)^2].
  5. [Data and code availability] The statement that data 'can be made available after request' is weak for a computational proof of principle. Making the code and data publicly available (e.g., in a repository) would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the transient free-energy minima are diagnostics of a self-consistently evolved Gaussian dynamics, not fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The order-parameter equation (6) and the fluctuation equations (15) form a closed set obtained from the stated Gaussian closure (Wick's theorem); the effective potential Fbar in Eq. (9) is introduced only after the dynamics, with the explicit statement that it is defined so that its derivative reproduces Eq. (6). Calling the plateau a minimum of Fbar is therefore an interpretation of the dynamics rather than a prediction extracted from a pre-assumed potential: the physical content is the self-consistently computed sign and size of the fluctuation renormalization r_fl^{αβ} (Eq. (7)), which enters through the dynamically evolved n_{αβ}(t) (Eqs. (8) and (15)). No parameter is fitted to the plateaus (R ≈ 3.85, φ ≈ π/2 and R ≈ 3, φ ≈ π/2); these values are outputs of the integration. The Gaussian approximation is an approximation, not a circularity, and the paper explicitly discloses that the large-N expansion is unavailable for N = 2 (Ref. [86]). Self-citations (Refs. [39], [47], [61], [68], [69]) are contextual (earlier models of VO2, Floquet protocols, kagome fluctuations) and are not used to justify the central NOBD mechanism; the central mechanism is derived from the written equations. The result therefore does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a controlled toy-model calculation, not on fitted experimental parameters. All numbers in the model are chosen to illustrate the mechanism, and no result is obtained by tuning a parameter to a target value. The principal assumptions are the Gaussian closure, relaxational model A dynamics with a thermal noise bath, instantaneous thermalization of fast modes, and the specific symmetry of the Landau potential.

free parameters (8)
  • r_{1,0}, r_{2,0} = r_{1,0}=15; r_{2,0}=15 (cooperative) or 12 (competitive)
    Bare quadratic coefficients set by hand to realize cooperative or almost-competitive equilibrium landscapes; not fitted to experiments.
  • u1, u2 = u1=0.9, u2=1.0
    Quartic couplings chosen to give the desired C4-symmetric or Z2xZ2 potential shape; not fitted.
  • T_c = 0.5
    Critical temperature scale in the toy model; chosen for numerical convenience.
  • Stiffness constants K1, K2 = K1=0.1, K2=5.0
    The anisotropic stiffness K1 < K2 is a load-bearing ingredient of the mechanism; chosen to illustrate the effect rather than fitted to a material.
  • Relaxation rates Gamma1, Gamma2 = Gamma1=0.9, Gamma2=0.5
    Anisotropic relaxation rates Gamma1 > Gamma2 drive the unequal fluctuation distribution; chosen to illustrate the mechanism.
  • UV cutoff Lambda_c and dimension d = Lambda_c=2*pi in d=3; Lambda_c=pi in d=2
    Cutoff regularizes the fluctuation integrals in Eq. (8); quantitative plateau times depend on it.
  • Quench parameters Ti, Tq, tau = Ti=0.025, Tq=4 or 2.5, tau=0.3
    Temperature profile in Eq. (5); chosen to force R close to zero and then let fluctuations act.
  • Coherent drive parameters (C4 model) = delta J2=5, Omega=10, t_av=6, sigma=2
    Parameters of the J2 modulation in Eq. (14); used only in the C4 model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The probability distribution P[phi](t) remains Gaussian around the homogeneous average field, so Wick's theorem applies to all interaction terms.
    Methods: 'By assuming P[phi](t) to be Gaussian around the homogeneous average field at time t...' This closure underlies Eqs. (6), (7), and (15) and is uncontrolled for strong quenches.
  • domain assumption Order parameters evolve by relaxational model A dynamics with white noise obeying the fluctuation-dissipation theorem at the instantaneous temperature T(t).
    Eqs. (4)-(5). This neglects inertial or coherent order parameter dynamics, which the authors explicitly acknowledge in the discussion of VO2.
  • domain assumption The fast degrees of freedom thermalize instantly, so the pump can be represented as a step-like temperature profile T(t).
    Eq. (5) and the text before it. This is a standard two-temperature modeling assumption, not derived microscopically.
  • domain assumption The fluctuation integrals are regularized with a finite ultraviolet cutoff Lambda_c in d=3 or d=2.
    Eq. (8) and figure captions. The quantitative plateau durations depend on the cutoff and dimensionality, while the qualitative mechanism is claimed to be robust.
  • domain assumption The Landau potential has the restricted Z2xZ2 (or C4) symmetric quartic form with only u1 and u2 interaction terms.
    Eq. (1). This is a minimal symmetry choice intended for qualitative discussion, not derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous average field is the relevant order parameter, and only the integrated fluctuation densities n_alpha_beta enter the dynamics.
    Methods: 'Considering the homogeneous contribution as the most relevant one is justified when spatially homogeneous perturbations are taken into account.' This restricts the validity to spatially homogeneous protocols.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonthermal order by disorder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDS4XX7M

@misc{pith2026241202616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonthermal order by disorder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDS4XX7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02616}
}
read the original abstract

The quench dynamics of systems exhibiting cooperative or almost competitive orders in equilibrium are explored using Ginzburg-Landau theory plus fluctuations. We show that when the renormalization of the free energy by fluctuations is taken into account, anisotropic stiffnesses and relaxation rates of the order parameters can lead to a stabilization of ordered states at transient free energy minima which are distinct from any (global or local) minima of the equilibrium free energy. This theory demonstrates that nonequilibrium fluctuations play a pivotal role in forming nonthermal orders. As nonthermal order and nonthermal fluctuations mutually stabilize each other over some time, this mechanism could be seen as a nonequilibrium variant of the order-by-disorder phenomenon. We discuss the potential relevance of these findings for systems with intertwined orders, such as superconductivity and density wave orders, relevant for high-temperature superconductors and the kagome metals, as well as for systems that show orbital ordering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    A. Zong, P. E. Dolgirev, A. Kogar, Y. Su, X. Shen, J. A. W. Straquadine, X. Wang, D. Luo, M. E. Kozina, A. H. Reid, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 227401 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.127.227401

    work page 2021

  2. [56]

    Wan and R

    Y. Wan and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 167203 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.167203

    work page 2017

  3. [87]

    Brihaye and M

    Y. Brihaye and M. Consoli, Physics Let- ters B 157, 48 (1985), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0370269385912092

    arXiv 1985

  4. [86]

    Zannetti, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 26, 3037 (1993), URL https://dx.doi.org/10

    M. Zannetti, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 26, 3037 (1993), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0305-4470/26/13/008

    work page 1993

  5. [1]

    Giannetti, M

    C. Giannetti, M. Capone, D. Fausti, M. Fab- rizio, F. Parmigiani, and D. Mihailovic, Advances in Physics 65, 58 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00018732.2016.1194044

    arXiv 2016

  6. [2]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Nature Mate- rials 16, 1077 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ nmat5017

    2017

  7. [3]

    de la Torre, D

    A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Ger- ber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 041002 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.041002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.041002 2021

  8. [4]

    Murakami, D

    Y. Murakami, D. Goleˇ z, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, Photo-induced nonequilibrium states in Mott insula- tors (2023), 2310.05201, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2310.05201

    arXiv 2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [5]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Mat- suyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Nature Physics 16, 38 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0698-y

    2020

  2. [7]

    F¨ orst, R

    M. F¨ orst, R. I. Tobey, S. Wall, H. Bromberger, V. Khanna, A. L. Cavalieri, Y.-D. Chuang, W. S. Lee, R. Moore, W. F. Schlotter, et al., Phys. Rev. B 84, 241104 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.241104

    2011 doi

  3. [8]

    Mankowsky, A

    R. Mankowsky, A. Subedi, M. F¨ orst, S. O. Mariager, M. Chollet, H. T. Lemke, J. S. Robinson, J. M. Glow- nia, M. P. Minitti, A. Frano, et al., Nature 7529, 71 (2014), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature13875

    2014

  4. [9]

    T. F. Nova, A. Cartella, A. Cantaluppi, M. F¨ orst, D. Bossini, R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, A. V. Kimel, R. Mer- lin, and A. Cavalleri, Nature Physics 2, 132 (2017), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3925

    2017 doi

  5. [10]

    Mankowsky, A

    R. Mankowsky, A. von Hoegen, M. F¨ orst, and A. Caval- leri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 197601 (2017), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.197601

    2017 doi

  6. [11]

    von Hoegen, R

    A. von Hoegen, R. Mankowsky, M. Fechner, M. F¨ orst, and A. Cavalleri, Nature 555, 79 (2018), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature25484

    2018 doi

  7. [12]

    The dashed orange line in (a) represents the time-dependent quadratic coefficient un- renormalized by the fluctuations

    and n11 = n22 (n12) in (a) and in (b), respectively. The dashed orange line in (a) represents the time-dependent quadratic coefficient un- renormalized by the fluctuations. The horizontal time-axis emphasizes the short (left), intermediate (middle) and long (right) time dynami...

    2020

  8. [13]

    Ichikawa, S

    H. Ichikawa, S. Nozawa, T. Sato, A. Tomita, K. Ichiyanagi, M. Chollet, L. Guerin, N. Dean, A. Caval- leri, S.-i. Adachi, et al., Nature Materials 10, 101 (2011), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2929

    2011 doi

  9. [14]

    Stojchevska, I

    L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Science 344, 177 (2014), ISSN 0036-8075, URL https://science. sciencemag.org/content/344/6180/177

    2014

  10. [15]

    Budden, T

    M. Budden, T. Gebert, M. Buzzi, G. Jotzu, E. Wang, T. Matsuyama, G. Meier, Y. Laplace, D. Pontiroli, M. Ricc` o, et al., Nature Physics 17, 611 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01148-1

    2021 doi

  11. [16]

    F¨ orst, C

    M. F¨ orst, C. Manzoni, S. Kaiser, Y. Tomioka, Y. Tokura, R. Merlin, and A. Cavalleri, Nature Physics 7, 854 (2011), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/nphys2055

    2011

  12. [17]

    Gassner, C

    S. Gassner, C. S. Weber, and M. Claassen, Nature Com- munications 15, 1776 (2024), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-024-45949-x

    2024 doi

  13. [18]

    Maklar, J

    J. Maklar, J. Sarkar, S. Dong, Y. A. Gerasimenko, 15 T. Pincelli, S. Beaulieu, P. S. Kirchmann, J. A. Sob- ota, S. Yang, D. Leuenberger, et al., Science Advances 9, eadi4661 (2023), URL https://www.science.org/doi/ abs/10.1126/sciadv.adi4661

    2023 doi

  14. [19]

    Tokura, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75, 011001 (2006), URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ

    Y. Tokura, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75, 011001 (2006), URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ. 75.011001

    2006 doi

  15. [20]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Tan, M. Liu, S. W. Teitelbaum, K. W. Post, F. Jin, K. A. Nelson, D. N. Basov, W. Wu, and R. D. Averitt, Nature Materials 15, 956 (2016), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/nmat4695

    2016 doi

  16. [21]

    S. W. Teitelbaum, B. K. Ofori-Okai, Y.-H. Cheng, J. Zhang, F. Jin, W. Wu, R. D. Averitt, and K. A. Nel- son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 267201 (2019), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.267201

    2019 doi

  17. [22]

    Sun and A

    Z. Sun and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021028 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.10.021028

    2020

  18. [23]

    Perfetti, P

    L. Perfetti, P. A. Loukakos, M. Lisowski, U. Boven- siepen, H. Eisaki, and M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 197001 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.99.197001

    2007

  19. [24]

    S. L. Johnson, M. Savoini, P. Beaud, G. Ingold, U. Staub, F. Carbone, L. Castiglioni, M. Hengsberger, and J. Os- terwalder, Structural Dynamics 4, 061506 (2017), ISSN 2329-7778, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4996176

    2017 doi

  20. [25]

    Maklar, Y

    J. Maklar, Y. W. Windsor, C. W. Nicholson, M. Pup- pin, P. Walmsley, V. Esposito, M. Porer, J. Rittmann, D. Leuenberger, M. Kubli, et al., Nature Communica- tions 12, 2499 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-021-22778-w

    2021

  21. [26]

    P. E. Dolgirev, A. V. Rozhkov, A. Zong, A. Kogar, N. Gedik, and B. V. Fine, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054203 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.101.054203

    2020

  22. [27]

    A. Zong, A. Kogar, Y.-Q. Bie, T. Rohwer, C. Lee, E. Baldini, E. Erge¸ cen, M. B. Yilmaz, B. Freelon, E. J. Sie, et al., Nature Physics 15, 27 (2019), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0311-9

    2019 doi

  23. [28]

    Kogar, A

    A. Kogar, A. Zong, P. E. Dolgirev, X. Shen, J. Straqua- dine, Y.-Q. Bie, X. Wang, T. Rohwer, I.-C. Tung, Y. Yang, et al., Nature Physics 16, 159 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0705-3

    2020 doi

  24. [30]

    P. E. Dolgirev, M. H. Michael, A. Zong, N. Gedik, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174306 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 101.174306

    2020 doi

  25. [31]

    Villain, R

    J. Villain, R. Bidaux, J.-P. Carton, and R. Conte, J. Phys. France 41, 1263 (1980), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1051/jphys:0198000410110126300

    1980 doi

  26. [32]

    E. F. Shender, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 178 (1982), URL http://www.jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/e/index/e/56/1/ p178?a=list

    1982

  27. [33]

    C. L. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2056 (1989), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62. 2056

    1989 doi

  28. [34]

    Moessner, Canadian Journal of Physics 79, 1283 (2001), URL https://doi.org/10.1139/p01-123

    R. Moessner, Canadian Journal of Physics 79, 1283 (2001), URL https://doi.org/10.1139/p01-123

    2001 doi

  29. [35]

    Nussinov and J

    Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.87.1

    2015

  30. [36]

    B. Lenz, M. Fabrizio, and M. Casula, Communications Physics 7, 35 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42005-023-01514-4

    2024

  31. [37]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. V. Chubukov, J. Knolle, I. Eremin, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B 85, 024534 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.85.024534

    2012

  32. [38]

    B. V. Svistunov, E. S. Babaev, and N. V. Prokof´ ev, Su- perfluid States of Matter (Taylor & Francis Group, 2015), 1st ed., URL https://doi.org/10.1201/b18346

    2015 doi

  33. [39]

    R. M. Fernandes, P. P. Orth, and J. Schmalian, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 133 (2019), ISSN 1947-5462, URL https: //www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10. 1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013200

    2019

  34. [40]

    Grandi, M

    F. Grandi, M. A. Sentef, D. M. Kennes, and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 110, 245138 (2024), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.245138

    2024 doi

  35. [41]

    Rastelli and A

    E. Rastelli and A. Tassi, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 20, L303 (1987), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0022-3719/20/15/003

    1987

  36. [42]

    van den Brink, New Journal of Physics 6, 201 (2004), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/201

    J. van den Brink, New Journal of Physics 6, 201 (2004), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/201

    2004 doi

  37. [43]

    Sachdev, Phys

    S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 45, 12377 (1992), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.12377

    1992 doi

  38. [44]

    Biskup, L

    M. Biskup, L. Chayes, and Z. Nussinov, Communications in Mathematical Physics 255, 253 (2005), URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00220-004-1272-7

    2005 doi

  39. [45]

    S. Wall, S. Yang, L. Vidas, M. Chollet, J. M. Glownia, M. Kozina, T. Katayama, T. Henighan, M. Jiang, T. A. Miller, et al., Science 362, 572 (2018)

    2018

  40. [46]

    Perez-Salinas, A

    D. Perez-Salinas, A. S. Johnson, D. Prabhakaran, and S. Wall, Nature Communications 13, 238 (2022), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27819-y

    2022 doi

  41. [47]

    A. S. Johnson, D. Moreno-Menc ´ ıa, E. B. Amuah, M. Menghini, J.-P. Locquet, C. Giannetti, E. Pas- tor, and S. E. Wall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 255701 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.129.255701

    2022

  42. [48]

    Picano, F

    A. Picano, F. Grandi, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, Phys. Rev. B 108, 035115 (2023), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.035115

    2023 doi

  43. [49]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.457

    2015 doi

  44. [50]

    D. K. Pratt, W. Tian, A. Kreyssig, J. L. Zarestky, S. Nandi, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, A. I. Goldman, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 087001 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.103.087001

    2009

  45. [51]

    R. M. Fernandes, D. K. Pratt, W. Tian, J. Zarestky, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, M. G. Kim, A. Thaler, N. Ni, P. C. Canfield, et al., Phys. Rev. B 81, 140501 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.81.140501

    2010

  46. [52]

    Neupert, M

    T. Neupert, M. M. Denner, J.-X. Yin, R. Thomale, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature Physics18, 137 (2022), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01404-y

    2022 doi

  47. [53]

    S. D. Wilson and B. R. Ortiz, Nature Reviews Ma- terials 9, 420 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41578-024-00677-y

    2024

  48. [54]

    Pavarini, E

    E. Pavarini, E. Koch, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. 16 Lett. 101, 266405 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.266405

    2008 doi

  49. [55]

    J. Li, H. U. R. Strand, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, Nature Communications 9, 4581 (2018), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07051-x

    2018 doi

  50. [57]

    Zhou and Y

    J. Zhou and Y. Wan, Transient selection of compet- ing order in frustrated spin Peierls systems after a quench (2024), 2409.19955, URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2409.19955

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.49.435

    1977

  52. [59]

    U. C. T¨ auber, Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Ap- proach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Be- havior (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  53. [60]

    Beaud, A

    P. Beaud, A. Caviezel, S. O. Mariager, L. Rettig, G. Ingold, C. Dornes, S.-W. Huang, J. A. Johnson, M. Radovic, T. Huber, et al., Nature Materials 13, 923 (2014), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4046

    2014 doi

  54. [61]

    A. Zong, P. E. Dolgirev, A. Kogar, E. Erge¸ cen, M. B. Yilmaz, Y.-Q. Bie, T. Rohwer, I.-C. Tung, J. Straquadine, X. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 097601 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.123.097601

    2019

  55. [62]

    Grandi, A

    F. Grandi, A. Amaricci, and M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. Re- search 2, 013298 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013298

    2020 doi

  56. [63]

    Mishra, M

    A. Mishra, M. Ma, F.-C. Zhang, S. Guertler, L.-H. Tang, and S. Wan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207201 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.93.207201

    2004

  57. [64]

    Nussinov and E

    Z. Nussinov and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 71, 195120 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.71.195120

    2005

  58. [65]

    J. H. Mentink, K. Balzer, and M. Eckstein, Nature Com- munications 6, 6708 (2015), URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/ncomms7708

    2015

  59. [66]

    A. P. Itin and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 075301 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.075301

    2015 doi

  60. [67]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Advances in Physics 64, 139 (2015), URL https://doi.org/10. 1080/00018732.2015.1055918

    2015

  61. [68]

    Eckstein, J

    M. Eckstein, J. H. Mentink, and P. Werner, Designing spin and orbital exchange Hamiltonians with ultrashort electric field transients (2017), 1703.03269

    2017 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Grandi and M

    F. Grandi and M. Eckstein, Phys. Rev. B 103, 245117 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.103.245117

    2021

  63. [70]

    M¨ uller, F

    A. M¨ uller, F. Grandi, and M. Eckstein, Phys. Rev. B 106, L121107 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L121107

    2022 doi

  64. [71]

    J. Fink, E. Schierle, E. Weschke, and J. Geck, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 056502 (2013), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/76/5/056502

    2013 doi

  65. [72]

    Domr¨ ose, T

    T. Domr¨ ose, T. Danz, S. F. Schaible, K. Ross- nagel, S. V. Yalunin, and C. Ropers, Nature Materi- als 22, 1345 (2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41563-023-01600-6

    2023

  66. [73]

    K. A. Cremin, J. Zhang, C. C. Homes, G. D. Gu, Z. Sun, M. M. Fogler, A. J. Millis, D. N. Basov, and R. D. Averitt, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 116, 19875 (2019), URL https://www.pnas.org/ doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1908368116

    2019 doi

  67. [74]

    Wandel, F

    S. Wandel, F. Boschini, E. H. da Silva Neto, L. Shen, M. X. Na, S. Zohar, Y. Wang, S. B. Welch, M. H. Seaberg, J. D. Koralek, et al., Science 376, 860 (2022), URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.abd7213

    2022

  68. [75]

    Q. Chen, D. Chen, W. Schnelle, C. Felser, and B. D. Gaulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 056401 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 129.056401

    2022 doi

  69. [76]

    K. Yang, W. Xia, X. Mi, L. Zhang, Y. Gan, A. Wang, Y. Chai, X. Zhou, X. Yang, Y. Guo, et al., Phys. Rev. B 107, 184506 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.184506

    2023 doi

  70. [77]

    Sur, K.-T

    Y. Sur, K.-T. Kim, S. Kim, and K. H. Kim, Nature Com- munications 14, 3899 (2023), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-023-39495-1

    2023 doi

  71. [78]

    Subires, A

    D. Subires, A. Korshunov, A. H. Said, L. S´ anchez, B. R. Ortiz, S. D. Wilson, A. Bosak, and S. Blanco-Canosa, Nature Communications 14, 1015 (2023), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36668-w

    2023 doi

  72. [79]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Sci- ence Advances 8, eabl4108 (2022), URL https://www. science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abl4108

    2022 doi

  73. [80]

    A. M. Tsvelik and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. B 108, 045119 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.108.045119

    2023

  74. [81]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Nature Com- munications 14, 7845 (2023), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-023-42952-6

    2023 doi

  75. [82]

    Tian and S

    Y. Tian and S. Y. Savrasov, Calculated Unconventional Superconductivity via Charge Fluctuations in Kagome Metal CsV 3Sb5 (2024), 2405.03137, URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2405.03137

    2024 arXiv

  76. [83]

    J. B. Goodenough, Journal of Solid State Chem- istry 3, 490 (1971), ISSN 0022-4596, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0022459671900910

    1971

  77. [84]

    Baum, D.-S

    P. Baum, D.-S. Yang, and A. H. Zewail, Science 318, 788 (2007), URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/science.1147724

    2007 doi

  78. [85]

    G. F. Mazenko and M. Zannetti, Phys. Rev. B 32, 4565 (1985), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.32.4565

    1985

  79. [88]

    Y. M. Sefidkhani, A. de la Torre, and G. A. Fiete, Metastability in Coexisting Competing Orders (2024), 2411.17871, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17871

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.