Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 61 references

A weak [111] magnetic field separates the low-energy spectrum of Ce2Zr2O7 into a fragile emergent photon below 0.05 meV and a robust spinon continuum that survives to 0.2 T, providing spectroscopic evidence for the π-flux quantum spin ice s

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A weak [111] magnetic field suppresses the emergent-photon weight but leaves the spinon continuum intact in Ce2Zr2O7, giving a new field-tuning protocol to demarcate fractionalized excitations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clever and potentially useful field-subtraction protocol, but the headline photon/spinon demarcation in Ce2Zr2O7 rests on a 2–3% signal without propagated errors and an uncharacterized 3T background. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2601.03202 v1 pith:MAPVIZTZ submitted 2026-01-06 cond-mat.str-el

Spectroscopic Demarcation of Emergent Photons and Spinons in a Dipolar-Octupolar Quantum Spin Liquid

Bin Gao , Zhengbang Zhou , Tingjun Zhang , Andrey Podlesnyak , Sang-Wook Cheong , Yong Baek Kim , Pengcheng Dai This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantum spin liquidemergent photonspinon continuumdipolar-octupolar pyrochloreCe2Zr2O7neutron scatteringhigh-field background subtractionπ-flux quantum spin ice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that in the dipolar-octupolar pyrochlore Ce2Zr2O7 a weak magnetic field along the [111] direction cleanly separates two fractionalized excitations that overlap at zero field: an emergent photon mode below about 0.05 meV, and a gapped spinon continuum between 0.05 and 0.10 meV. Using a same-temperature high-field subtraction protocol, in which the 3.0 T dataset serves as an internal nonmagnetic background, the authors isolate a gapless photon-like peak at zero field and show that a field of roughly 0.15 T suppresses this peak while leaving the higher-energy spinon continuum largely unchanged. They argue that this dichotomous field response—one sector fragile, the other durable—is a fingerprint of the U(1) gauge structure of the π-flux quantum spin ice state and is hard to reconcile with conventional magnons. The result matters because it offers a high-flux, field-tunable road to separating photons and spinons without polarized neutrons, and it strengthens the experimental case that Ce2Zr2O7 realizes a π-flux QSI.

Core claim

The core claim is that the low-energy excitation spectrum of Ce2Zr2O7, measured by inelastic neutron scattering at about 50 mK, decomposes into two sectors with opposite responses to a magnetic field along [111]. Because the field couples selectively to the dipolar (τ_z) component of the Ce3+ pseudospins and not to the octupolar components, it acts as a clean knob on the photon-bearing part of the spectrum. Subtracting the same-temperature 3.0 T dataset as an internal reference, the authors find a sharp gapless peak below 0.05 meV at zero field, which they identify with the emergent photon of the U(1) gauge theory; this peak is rapidly suppressed and broadened by fields of 0.10–0.20 T, while

What carries the argument

The central object is the dipolar-octupolar pseudospin basis of Ce2Zr2O7's low-energy doublet, in which the neutron couples to the dipolar component τ_z = sinθ S_x + cosθ S_z and a [111] field acts on the same component only. In the rotated XYZ basis, S_x carries the emergent electric field (the photon), S^± create gapped spinons coupled to the U(1) gauge field, and the cross-correlator ⟨S_x S_z⟩ is a photon–spinon mixing channel that vanishes at zero field but becomes finite under a [111] field when θ≠0. The experimental mechanism is the same-temperature high-field background subtraction (STHFBS), I_mag(E) = I_raw(E;H) − I_raw(E;3 T), which strips the nonmagnetic background and exposes the

Load-bearing premise

The 3.0 T dataset is assumed to be a clean nonmagnetic reference with no field-dependent magnetic scattering below ~0.15 meV; if that assumption fails, subtracting it removes real zero-field magnetic weight and the reported photon peak is an artifact.

What would settle it

Polarized neutron scattering at 3.0 T and base temperature, isolating the magnetic channel in the E<0.15 meV window: if the magnetic response is nonzero or field-dependent, the same-temperature high-field subtraction has removed real zero-field magnetic weight, and the claimed photon peak is an artifact.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Because STHFBS does not require polarized neutrons, the same demarcation can be measured at many fields quickly, opening systematic field scans of photon and spinon spectral weight in Ce2Zr2O7.
  • The observed dichotomy—fragile photon versus durable spinon—distinguishes the π-flux QSI from a conventional magnet, where a field would shift spin-wave energies without selectively destroying their intensity.
  • At fields well below the true confinement transition, the apparent photon gap is a field-induced mimicry effect, so future data must separate this apparent gap from a genuine confinement gap by tracking peak position and width.
  • Because the field couples to a specific pseudospin component, the same demarcation protocol should transfer to other dipolar-octupolar pyrochlores such as Ce2Sn2O7 and Ce2Hf2O7.
  • The quantitative energy windows (photon below 0.05 meV, spinon 0.05–0.10 meV) give future higher-resolution probes a concrete target for isolating the same modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the protocol implies an easy internal consistency check: using 1, 2, or 5 T as the reference instead of 3 T should yield the same zero-field photon shape if the high-field background is truly nonmagnetic.
  • The field-induced hardening of the spinon continuum is itself a measurement of the spinon gap versus field; mapping that slope would allow a quantitative test of the gauge coupling in the π-flux state.
  • The paper's attribution of the lost photon weight to transfer into Bragg peaks is testable by measuring elastic intensity in the same field sweep; a quantitative accounting of the missing spectral weight would confirm or disprove the redistribution picture.
  • The mimicry of a gapped photon below the confinement transition suggests that future work should look for an independent signature of the true confinement scale, for example in the field dependence of the spinon linewidth.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports neutron scattering experiments on the dipolar-octupolar pyrochlore Ce2Zr2O7 in a [111] magnetic field. To isolate the weak quasielastic magnetic signal from large nonmagnetic backgrounds, the authors introduce a 'same-temperature high-field background subtraction' (STHFBS) protocol in which the 3.0 T dataset is subtracted from low-field (0, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 T) datasets at the same base temperature. They observe a low-energy peak below ~0.05 meV that is rapidly suppressed by weak fields, while a higher-energy feature between 0.05 and 0.10 meV remains comparatively robust, and interpret this dichotomy as a spectroscopic demarcation of emergent photons (suppressed by the field) and spinons (robust). The experimental results are compared with gauge mean-field theory and exact diagonalization calculations on a 16-site cluster, which reproduce the qualitative field evolution. The paper claims this provides strong evidence for the π-flux quantum spin ice state in Ce2Zr2O7.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be an important experimental step toward detecting the emergent photon mode of a U(1) quantum spin liquid and establishing a field-based protocol for separating fractionalized excitations in dipolar-octupolar pyrochlores. The idea of using a [111] field to selectively couple to the dipolar component is physically motivated and clever. The paper is also transparent about some of its limitations, including the finite-size underestimation of photon weight in ED and the manual adjustment of the mixing angle θ. However, the significance is currently conditional: the key experimental evidence rests on an unvalidated assumption about the 3.0 T background, and the reported 2–3% signal has no propagated statistical uncertainties in the main figure. These issues must be resolved before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Experimental Methods; Eq. S1] The entire STHFBS protocol assumes that the 3.0 T spectrum contains no field-dependent magnetic scattering in the low-energy window. The paper states that the DO nature precludes field-induced spin waves, but this is asserted, not demonstrated. The 3.0 T raw spectrum is never shown or characterized for its magnetic content. Since the photon signal is only 2–3% of the raw intensity (Supp. Eq. S2), even a small magnetic contribution at 3.0 T—from gapped spinons, field-induced quasielastic fluctuations, or a shifted elastic line—would be subtracted and could create or distort the apparent zero-field photon peak. The validation against polarized-neutron data in Fig. S3 is performed only at zero field and does not constrain the field dependence. This is a load-bearing assumption and needs direct evidence, such as a comparison of the 3.0 T spectrum with a high-temperature reference or a polari
  2. [Fig. 3; Supp. Eq. S2] The central Fig. 3 shows subtracted intensity curves without any propagated statistical uncertainties. Given that the photon contribution is stated to be ~2–3% of the raw integrated intensity (I_raw ~10^3, I_mag ~20–30 in arbitrary units), the statistical significance of the subtracted signal is not established. If these numbers correspond to actual counts, Poisson noise on the difference of two ~10^3-count spectra would be ~sqrt(2000) ≈ 45, making the 20–30 unit signal comparable to or smaller than the noise. The authors should provide error bars on the subtracted spectra, report the actual counting statistics, and quantify the significance of the low-energy peak and its field suppression. Without this, the central demarcation is not statistically supported.
  3. [Supp. 'Exact Diagonalization'] The choice of θ = 0.2π in the ED calculation is explicitly adjusted from the fitted value θ ≃ 0.1π to compensate for a finite-size underestimation of the photon weight. This adjustment affects the relative intensity of the photon versus spinon channels in the τ^zτ^z response, which is exactly what the paper uses to assign the low-energy peak to the photon. While the authors disclose this, it means the quantitative spectral decomposition is partly fitted, not independently predicted. The qualitative field-induced suppression is less affected, but any claim of 'quantitative consistency' (main text, 'Results and Spectral Demarcation') should be tempered or supported by a sensitivity analysis over θ and over cluster size.
  4. [Results; resolution] The energy windows used to define the photon and spinon sectors (E < 0.05 meV and 0.05–0.10 meV) are smaller than the elastic energy resolution of ~0.1 meV FWHM quoted for Ei = 3.32 meV. This means the 'photon peak' below 0.05 meV lies essentially within the instrumental resolution, and the 'spinon window' overlaps the resolution tail. The paper does not discuss how the field-dependent changes in these windows can be distinguished from resolution effects or from a field-induced shift of the elastic line. A resolution deconvolution or at least a discussion of the effective energy resolution in the subtracted spectra is needed.
  5. [Discussion] The paper claims that the suppressed photon spectral weight is 'largely transferred to Bragg peaks (elastic scattering)' without presenting any data on the field dependence of the elastic intensity. This is an unsupported statement. If the authors have such data, they should show it; otherwise the phrase 'redistribution rather than a simple loss' is not justified by the presented measurements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supp. Fig. S2 caption] Typo: 'gaped spinon window' should be 'gapped spinon window.'
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'Because of the DO nature of Ce2Zr2O7, we do not have field-induced ferromagnetic spin waves' is grammatically awkward; consider rewriting for clarity.
  3. [References] Reference [21] contains an unusual DOI '10.1103/4qxy-l8pg'; please verify.
  4. [Fig. S4(b)] The statement that the zero-field DSSF at q=X shows photon intensity 'comparable to that of the spinon continuum' would be clearer if the photon and spinon components were explicitly identified in the figure or caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: ED photon weight is tuned via θ; central field-demarcation observation is not fitted.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplemental Material, 'Exact Diagonalization', final paragraph (after Eq. S5)]
    "fits to thermodynamic and spectroscopic data suggest θ≃0.1π; with this value, sin2 θ≈0.1, and the photon contribution to ⟨τzτz⟩ is suppressed by nearly an order of magnitude. In order to partially compensate for this finite-size underestimation of the photon weight and obtain a more realistic quasielastic intensity in the τzτz channel, we adopt θ=0.2π in our ED calculations."

    The ED photon weight in the neutron cross-section is proportional to sin²θ⟨SxSx⟩ (Eq. S5). The paper states that the fitted θ≃0.1π gives a photon intensity that is too small by roughly an order of magnitude, so θ is increased to 0.2π to 'obtain a more realistic quasielastic intensity.' The same ED spectra are then used to identify the experimentally observed low-energy peak as the photon and to provide quantitative support (Fig. 3 inset). Thus the quantitative photon intensity is not independently predicted; it is set by the adjusted parameter. The field-dependent suppression, however, is not fitted and remains a nontrivial observation.

full rationale

The central experimental observation—that a weak [1,1,1] field suppresses low-energy weight below ~0.05 meV while leaving the 0.05–0.10 meV sector relatively robust—is obtained directly from the raw measured intensities via the STHFBS subtraction I_mag(E)=I_raw(E;H)−I_raw(E;3 T) (Eq. S1). That subtraction is a data-processing step, and the field-induced change is essentially the difference of raw spectra; it is not constructed by any fitted parameter. The zero-field STHFBS result is validated against polarized-neutron data from Ref. [26], a different measurement, even though that work shares authors; per the reviewing rules this is independent evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The 3 T 'internal background' assumption is an untested assumption that carries correctness risk, but it is not circular by construction. The main circular element is the ED comparison: the mixing angle θ is explicitly adjusted from the fitted value 0.1π to 0.2π to compensate for finite-size underestimation of the photon weight, and this adjusted calculation is then presented as support for the photon assignment. Because the field-dependent dichotomy is not fitted and the paper discloses the adjustment, the overall circularity is partial rather than total. Score 4 reflects one fitted input used to support the interpretation, while the core empirical demarcation remains independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the θ adjustment, the adopted exchange parameters, and the energy-window definitions. The most consequential free parameter is θ, which is explicitly set to 0.2π to make ED match experiment. The 3T-background assumption is an ad hoc axiom that is load-bearing for the entire subtraction protocol.

free parameters (3)
  • Mixing angle θ = 0.2π in ED (fits suggest 0.1π)
    Adjusted by hand in the ED calculations to compensate finite-size underestimation of photon weight and to match the observed quasielastic intensity. This is a free parameter that directly affects the predicted photon/spinon spectral weights.
  • Exchange parameters Jxx, Jyy, Jzz = 0.063, 0.062, 0.011 meV
    Adopted from prior fits to thermodynamic/spectroscopic data [14,19] rather than derived in this paper. The GMFT/ED interpretation depends on these values.
  • Energy window boundaries = 0.05 meV, 0.10 meV
    Chosen post hoc to separate 'photon' and 'spinon' sectors. These boundaries are below the 0.1 meV instrumental resolution, so the classification is a hand-defined parameter of the analysis.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The 3.0 T high-field dataset is a valid background with no field-dependent magnetic scattering in the low-energy window.
    Invoked in Eq. S1 and the STHFBS protocol. If false, the subtraction creates or removes the photon signal.
  • domain assumption Neutron scattering couples only to the dipolar component τz of the DO pseudospin.
    Standard for DO pyrochlores, used to express the cross section as ⟨τzτz⟩ (Supp. Eq. S4-S5).
  • domain assumption The field couples selectively to the dipolar component, leaving the octupolar sector largely unaffected.
    Central to the claim that the field can be used as a selective spectroscopic tool; cited to prior work [27-30].
  • ad hoc to paper A 16-site ED cluster with periodic boundaries can represent the thermodynamic-limit photon/spinon physics after a manual θ adjustment.
    The authors themselves describe finite-size artifacts (4-site ring exchange, no small-q regime) and compensate by changing θ; this is an ad hoc modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy windows E<0.05 meV and 0.05-0.10 meV correspond to photon and spinon sectors respectively.
    Used throughout Results to categorize the data. The windows are narrower than the 0.1 meV resolution, so they are an analytic choice rather than a direct measurement.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic Demarcation of Emergent Photons and Spinons in a Dipolar-Octupolar Quantum Spin Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAPVIZTZ

@misc{pith2026260103202,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic Demarcation of Emergent Photons and Spinons in a Dipolar-Octupolar Quantum Spin Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAPVIZTZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.03202}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The identification of fractionalized excitations in quantum spin liquids (QSLs) remains a central challenge in condensed matter physics. In dipolar-octupolar (DO) pyrochlores, such as $\text{Ce}_2\text{Zr}_2\text{O}_7$, the candidate $\pi$-flux quantum spin ice (QSI) state is predicted to host both gapless emergent photons and a continuum of spinons. However, resolving these modes at zero field is complicated by their spectral overlap and the presence of nonmagnetic scattering near zero energy. Here, we report neutron scattering experiments on $\text{Ce}_2\text{Zr}_2\text{O}_7$ under a magnetic field along the $[1,1,1]$ direction. In contrast to previous unpolarized studies at zero-field that relied on high-temperature subtraction, we use a same-temperature high-field subtraction protocol to isolate the photon mode. Leveraging the selective coupling of the magnetic field to the dipolar degrees of freedom, we demonstrate the spectroscopic demarcation of these excitations. We observe that weak fields ($\approx 0.15$ T) suppress the low-energy photon weight while leaving the high-energy spinon continuum robust, albeit hardened. Our results, supported by gauge mean-field theory and exact diagonalization calculations, provide strong evidence for the $\pi$-flux QSI state and introduce a powerful field-tuning protocol for investigating DO-QSLs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.03202 by Andrey Podlesnyak, Bin Gao, Pengcheng Dai, Sang-Wook Cheong, Tingjun Zhang, Yong Baek Kim, Zhengbang Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Pyrochlore network of Ce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Field and energy evolution of the low-energy spectrum of Ce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Field-induced redistribution of low-energy spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Wen, Topological order: From long-range entan- gled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, International Scholarly Research Notices2013 (2013)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological order: From long-range entan- gled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, International Scholarly Research Notices2013 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A field guide to spin liq- uids, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Hermele, M

    M. Hermele, M. P. Fisher, and L. Balents, Pyrochlore photons: The u(1) spin liquid in a s=1/2 three- dimensional frustrated magnet, Physical Review B69, 064404 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Benton, O

    O. Benton, O. Sikora, and N. Shannon, Seeing the light: Experimental signatures of emergent electromagnetism in a quantum spin ice, Physical Review B86, 075154 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Tokiwa, T

    Y. Tokiwa, T. Yamashita, D. Terazawa, K. Kimura, Y. Kasahara, T. Onishi, Y. Kato, M. Halim, P. Gegen- wart, T. Shibauchi,et al., Discovery of emergent photon and monopoles in a quantum spin liquid, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan87, 064702 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    B. Gao, T. Chen, D. W. Tam, C.-L. Huang, K. P. Kalyankutty, G. Li, R. Coldea, M. B. Yiu, A. A. Podlesnyak, R. Braunisch,et al., Experimental signa- tures of a three-dimensional quantum spin liquid in ef- fective spin-1/2 ce2zr2o7 pyrochlore, Nature Physics15, 1052 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Sibille, E

    R. Sibille, E. Lhotel, V. Pomjakushin, C. Baines, T. Fen- nell, and M. Kenzelmann, Candidate quantum spin liq- uid in the ce 3+ pyrochlore stannate ce 2sn2o7, Physical Review Letters115, 097202 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Gaudet, E

    J. Gaudet, E. M. Smith, J. Dudemaine, J. Beare, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, J. P. Clancy, B. Klemke, C. Baines, and B. D. Gaulin, Quantum spin ice dynamics in the dipole- octupole pyrochlore magnet ce 2zr2o7, Physical Review Letters122, 187201 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Sibille, N

    R. Sibille, N. Gauthier, E. Lhotel, V. Poree, V. Pom- jakushin, R. A. Ewings, T. G. Perring, J. Ollivier, A. Wildes, C. Ritter,et al., A quantum liquid of mag- netic octupoles on the pyrochlore lattice, Nature Physics 16, 546 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    E. M. Smith, O. Benton, D. R. Yahne, B. Placke, J. Gaudet, J. Dudemaine, A. Fitterman, J. Beare, A. R. Wildes, S. Bhattacharya,et al., Case for a u(1)π quantum spin liquid ground state in the dipole-octupole pyrochlore ce2zr2o7, Physical Review X12, 021015 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    B. Gao, T. Chen, H. Yan, C. Duan, C.-L. Huang, X. P. Yao, F. Ye, C. Balz, J. R. Stewart, K. Naka- jima, S. Ohira-Kawamura, G. Xu, X. Xu, S.-W. Cheong, E. Morosan, A. H. Nevidomskyy, G. Chen, and P. Dai, Magnetic field effects in an octupolar quantum spin liq- uid candidate, Physical Review B106, 094425 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Por´ ee, E

    V. Por´ ee, E. Lhotel, S. Petit, L. Clark, J. Ollivier, L. Opherden, A. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, and R. Sibille, Crystal-field states of the dipolar-octupolar pyrochlores ce2sn2o7 and ce 2zr2o7, Physical Review Materials6, 044406 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Beare, J

    J. Beare, J. Dudemaine, G. M. MacDougall, A. A. Aczel, Y. Yiu, G. M. Luke, and B. D. Gaulin,µsr study of the dipole-octupole quantum spin ice candidate ce2zr2o7, Physical Review B108, 174411 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Por´ ee, E

    V. Por´ ee, E. Lhotel, S. Petit, F. Desrochers, A. Her- man, W. Desrat, J. Ollivier, H. Mutka, and R. Sibille, Dipolar-octupolar correlations and hierarchy of exchange interactions in ce2hf2o7, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08261 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    E. M. Smith, O. Benton, J. Dudemaine, J. Beare, S. Bhattacharya, T. DeLazzer, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, D. H. Ryan, M. Halim, D. M. Silevitch,et al., Quan- tum spin ice response to a magnetic field in the dipole- octupole pyrochlore ce 2zr2o7, Physical Review B108, 054438 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Bhardwaj, S

    A. Bhardwaj, S. Zhang, H. Yan, R. Moessner, A. H. Nev- idomskyy, and H. J. Changlani, Sleuthing out the ex- change interactions in the dipolar-octupolar pyrochlore ce2zr2o7, npj Quantum Materials7, 51 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    E. M. Smith, A. Fitterman, R. Sch¨ afer, B. Placke, A. Woods, S. Lee, S. H. Y. Huang, S. Sharma, J. Beare, D. Chatterjee, C. Balz, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. R. Wildes, E. Kermarrec, G. M. Luke, O. Ben- ton, R. Moessner, R. Movshovich, A. D. Bianchi, and B. D. Gaulin, Two-peak heat capacity accounts for rln(2) entropy and ground state access in the...

    work page doi:10.1103/4qxy-l8pg 2025

  22. [22]

    Zhou and Y

    Z. Zhou and Y. B. Kim, Towards a global phase diagram of ce-based dipolar-octupolar pyrochlore magnets under magnetic fields, Physical Review B112, L060407 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Z. Zhou, F. Desrochers, and Y. B. Kim, Magnetic field response of dipolar-octupolar quantum spin ice, Physical Review B110, 174441 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    T. A. Bojesen and S. Onoda, Quantum spin ice under a

  25. [25]

    Szab´ o and C

    A. Szab´ o and C. Castelnovo, Seeing beyond the light: Vison and photon electrodynamics in quantum spin ice, Physical Review B100, 10.1103/physrevb.100.014417 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.014417 2019

  26. [26]

    B. Gao, F. Desrochers, D. W. Tam, D. M. Kirschbaum, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, D. H. Nguyen, Y. Su, S.-W. Cheong, S. Paschen,et al., Neutron scattering and thermody- namic evidence for emergent photons and fractionaliza- tion in a pyrochlore spin ice, Nature Physics21, 1203 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    A. S. Patri, M. Hosoi, and Y. B. Kim, Distinguishing dipolar and octupolar quantum spin ices using contrast- ing magnetostriction signatures, Physical Review Re- search2, 023253 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Huang, G

    Y.-P. Huang, G. Chen, and M. Hermele, Quantum spin ices and topological phases from dipolar-octupolar dou- blets on the pyrochlore lattice, Physical Review Letters 112, 167203 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Hosoi, E

    M. Hosoi, E. Z. Zhang, A. S. Patri, and Y. B. Kim, Un- covering footprints of dipolar-octupolar quantum spin ice 10 from neutron scattering signatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 097202 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Benton, Ground-state phase diagram of dipolar- octupolar pyrochlores, Phys

    O. Benton, Ground-state phase diagram of dipolar- octupolar pyrochlores, Phys. Rev. B102, 104408 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    See Supplementary Materials for details

  32. [32]

    J. G. Rau and M. J. Gingras, Frustrated quantum rare- earth pyrochlores, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    C. Liu, G. B. Hal´ asz, and L. Balents, Competing orders in pyrochlore magnets from aZ 2 spin liquid perspective, Physical Review B100, 075125 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    C. Liu, G. B. Hal´ asz, and L. Balents, Symmetric U(1) andZ 2 spin liquids on the pyrochlore lattice, Physical Review B104, 054401 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Schneider, J

    B. Schneider, J. C. Halimeh, and M. Punk, Projective symmetry group classification of chiralZ 2 spin liquids on the pyrochlore lattice: application to the spin-1/2 XXZ heisenberg model, Physical Review B105, 125122 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    L. E. Chern and Y. B. Kim, Theoretical study of quan- tum spin liquids in S=1/2 hyper-hyperkagome magnets: Classification, heat capacity, and dynamical spin struc- ture factor, Physical Review B104, 094413 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    L. E. Chern, R. Schaffer, S. Sorn, and Y. B. Kim, Fermionic spin liquid analysis of the paramagnetic state in volborthite, Physical Review B96, 165117 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    L. E. Chern, K. Hwang, T. Mizoguchi, Y. Huh, and Y. B. Kim, Quantum spin liquid and magnetic order in a two- dimensional nonsymmorphic lattice: considering the dis- torted kagome lattice of volborthite, Physical Review B 96, 035118 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Desrochers, L

    F. Desrochers, L. E. Chern, and Y. B. Kim, Symmetry fractionalization in the gauge mean-field theory of quan- tum spin ice, Physical Review B107, 064404 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum coherence: Quantum spin ice and lattice gauge theory, inSpin Ice(Springer,

  41. [41]

    Desrochers, L

    F. Desrochers, L. E. Chern, and Y. B. Kim, Competing U(1) andZ 2 dipolar-octupolar quantum spin liquids on the pyrochlore lattice: Application to Ce 2Zr2O7, Phys. Rev. B105, 035149 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Desrochers and Y

    F. Desrochers and Y. B. Kim, Spectroscopic signatures of fractionalization in octupolar quantum spin ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 066502 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Desrochers and Y

    F. Desrochers and Y. B. Kim, Finite-temperature dynam- ics in 0-flux andπ-flux quantum spin ice: Self-consistent exclusive boson approach, Phys. Rev. B109, 144410 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    S. Lee, S. Onoda, and L. Balents, Generic quantum spin ice, Phys. Rev. B86, 104412 (2012)

    2012

  45. [45]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Spin liquid regimes at nonzero temperature in quantum spin ice, Phys. Rev. B87, 205130 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    Banerjee, S

    A. Banerjee, S. V. Isakov, K. Damle, and Y. B. Kim, Un- usual liquid state of hard-core bosons on the pyrochlore lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 047208 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    Huang, Y

    C.-J. Huang, Y. Deng, Y. Wan, and Z. Y. Meng, Dynam- ics of topological excitations in a model quantum spin ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 167202 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    S. D. Pace, S. C. Morampudi, R. Moessner, and C. R. Laumann, Emergent fine structure constant of quantum spin ice is large, Physical Review Letters127, 117205 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    S. C. Morampudi, F. Wilczek, and C. R. Laumann, Spec- troscopy of spinons in coulomb quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 097204 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    C. Zhou, Z. Zhou, F. Desrochers, Y. B. Kim, and Z. Y. Meng, Quantum fisher information as a thermal and dy- namical probe in frustrated magnets: Insights from quan- tum spin ice (2025), arXiv:2510.14813 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Sch¨ afer, I

    R. Sch¨ afer, I. Hagym´ asi, R. Moessner, and D. J. Luitz, The pyrochlore s = 1/2 heisenberg antiferromagnet at fi- nite temperature, Physical Review B102, 10.1103/phys- revb.102.054408 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  52. [52]

    A. V. Knyazev, Toward the optimal precondi- tioned eigensolver: Locally optimal block pre- conditioned conjugate gradient method, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing23, 517 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827500366124

    doi:10.1137/s1064827500366124 2001

  53. [53]

    E. R. Gagliano and C. A. Balseiro, Dynamical proper- ties of quantum many-body systems at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2999 (1987)

    1987

  54. [54]

    Prelovˇ sek and J

    P. Prelovˇ sek and J. Bonˇ ca, Ground state and finite tem- perature lanczos methods, arXiv:1111.5931 (2011), also inStrongly Correlated Systems: Numerical Methods, eds. A. Avella and F. Mancini (Springer, 2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    Sanders, H

    A. Sanders, H. Yan, C. Castelnovo, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Experimentally tunable qed in dipolar- octupolar quantum spin ice (2024), arXiv:2312.11641 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    M. J. Gingras and P. A. McClarty, Quantum spin ice: a search for gapless quantum spin liquids in pyrochlore magnets, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 056501 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press, 2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Gaudet, E

    J. Gaudet, E. M. Smith, J. Dudemaine, J. Beare, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, N. P. Butch, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, G. Xu, D. R. Yahne, K. A. Ross, C. A. Marjerrison, J. D. Garrett, G. M. Luke, A. D. Bianchi, and B. D. Gaulin, Quantum spin ice dynamics in the dipole-octupole py- rochlore magnet Ce2Zr2O7, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 187201 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    K. A. Ross, L. Savary, B. D. Gaulin, and L. Balents, Quantum excitations in quantum spin ice, Physical Re- view X1, 021002 (2011)

    2011

  60. [60]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Coulombic quantum liquids in spin-1/2 pyrochlores, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 037202 (2012)

    2012

  61. [111]

    magnetic field: From pyrochlore to kagome, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 227204 (2017)

    2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.