Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

This paper claims that every N_c-color Potts ice model is secretly an abelian projection of SU(N_c) gauge theory, with its charged excitations carrying root-vector charges and its emergent gauge fields generated by the Cartan subalgebra.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 06:18 UTC pith:4RXSHJF6

load-bearing objection A solid and genuinely novel su(Nc) framework for Potts ices, with a few honest loose ends; worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.22909 v2 pith:4RXSHJF6 submitted 2026-01-30 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

q-state Potts ice

Mark Potts , S.A. Parameswaran , Roderich Moessner This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Potts icespin iceemergent gauge fieldsCoulomb phasesu(N) Lie algebrarootonsquantum spin liquidflux frustration
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 paper generalizes classical and quantum spin ice to N_c-color Potts ice models and argues that their low-energy physics is organized by the Lie algebra su(N_c): the local color ice rule becomes a Gauss law for N_c−1 emergent U(1) electric fields, and the elementary excitations—called rootons—carry charges given by the root vectors of su(N_c), interacting entropically through Coulomb potentials whose strengths are fixed by root inner products. The classical models are shown to host Coulomb phases with characteristic pinch-point correlations and worm statistics, verified numerically for N_c=4 on square and pyrochlore lattices and for N_c=6 on the cubic lattice. Adding quantum fluctuations produces N_c−1 photon species, gapped visons, and flavor-changing three-field interactions unique to N_c>2 that are RG-relevant and dominate the low-energy matter sector. The paper also identifies a flux-frustration mechanism for negative magnetic-field couplings, where degenerate Cartan-symmetric flux vacua promote a conjectured correlated flux liquid rather than a simple product state.

Core claim

The central claim is that the charged excitations of N_c-color Potts ice have su(N_c) root-valued charges, and the emergent gauge structure is the (N_c−1)-fold U(1) group generated by the Cartan subalgebra of su(N_c), making Potts ice a lattice realization of an abelian projection of SU(N_c) gauge theory. The argument runs through a mapping of colors to field vectors forming a simplex: the associated diagonal matrices span the Cartan subalgebra, and the off-diagonal generators that swap colors create defects whose charges are the roots α. Classical correlations then take the form of (N_c−1) independent Coulomb-phase fields, with entropic interactions between rootons proportional to root inne

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the color electric field: to each of the N_c colors one assigns a vector E_c so that the N_c vectors form the vertices of an (N_c−1)-simplex; the N_c×N_c diagonal matrices built from these vectors span the Cartan subalgebra of su(N_c). The off-diagonal generators R_α perform color swaps and act as raising operators, so flipping a link creates two rootons with charges ±α. This identification turns the color ice rule into a set of divergence-free conditions, gives the entropic interaction law in terms of root inner products, and dictates the allowed gauge-invariant matter operators—notably the three-field operators (Φ^{α+β})^† Φ^α Φ^β that are the quantum remnants of glu

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the N_c−1 emergent electric-field flavors are statistically independent inside the ground-state manifold; this is verified only numerically for N_c=4 and N_c=6 models, and hidden flavor correlations would break the multi-U(1) Coulomb description and the root-inner-product interaction law.

What would settle it

Simulate an N_c=5 Potts ice on a suitable bipartite lattice and measure (a) multi-flavor correlations ⟨E^i_a E^j_b⟩ with i≠j, and (b) the entropic force between rootons whose root charges have inner product zero, or between rootons sharing exactly one color. Any nonzero orthogonal-rooton interaction, or a force strength departing from the predicted 2/1/0 pattern, would falsify the independent-flavor Coulomb picture.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, N_c-state Potts ice provides a local lattice model in which an abelian projection of SU(N_c) gauge theory emerges without any explicitly imposed gauge constraint.
  • Classical N_c-color ices for any N_c should display Coulomb-phase correlations of (N_c−1) independent emergent fields, with pinch-point singularities in the color structure factor.
  • Rooton-antirooton entropic forces should follow a universal pattern: strength 2 for rootons related by a single root, 1 for rootons sharing one color, and 0 for rootons sharing no colors—independent of N_c.
  • Quantum Potts ices with N_c>2 should have low-energy physics dominated by three-field flavor-changing interactions, pushing transitions out of the liquid phase toward first-order behavior.
  • For negative flux couplings, the vacuum is a flux-frustrated entangled state in which rootons moving around plaquettes acquire indefinite Aharonov-Bohm phases and hybridize with flux excitations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension: classical Monte Carlo measurement of the entropic force between rootons with orthogonal root charges in an N_c=5 or N_c=8 model. The paper predicts exactly zero interaction; any finite force would indicate flavor correlations that invalidate the factorized free energy.
  • The three-field operators suggest quantum Potts ices sit closer to strongly coupled lattice gauge theories than to QED; one could probe this by tuning J_±/J_Q and looking for an unstable fixed point or a direct first-order melt of the liquid phase.
  • If the flux-liquid conjecture holds, the N_c=3 quantum Potts ice on the cubic lattice becomes a concrete setting for a coexisting color-flux liquid with two distinct emergent excitations—a state with no analogue in conventional spin ice.
  • Because the construction works for any N_c on bipartite lattices with coordination zN_c, ultracold multilevel atoms or Rydberg arrays could realize Potts ices with dialable N_c, effectively tuning the number of emergent photons.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a general mapping from Nc-color antiferromagnetic Potts models on bipartite lattices to emergent gauge theories with (Nc−1) U(1) gauge fields. The color variables are assigned to vertices of an (Nc−1)-simplex, embedded in the Cartan subalgebra of su(Nc); ground states satisfy a divergence-free condition, and color-swap defects carry charges equal to su(Nc) roots ('rootons'). The authors argue that the long-wavelength theory is a multi-U(1) Coulomb phase, with entropic interactions proportional to root inner products. Quantum extensions are analyzed via gauge mean-field theory, yielding multiple photon modes, relevant three-rooton interactions, and a conjectured flux-liquid phase for V<0. Monte Carlo data for Nc=4 (square, pyrochlore) and Nc=6 (cubic) models are presented in support of the classical claims.

Significance. If correct, the construction provides a clean lattice realization of an abelian projection of SU(Nc) gauge theory: (Nc−1) emergent photons, root-valued electric charges, and non-trivial couplings inherited from the non-abelian parent group. The algebraic mapping is elegant and generalizes earlier Nc=4 results; the paper is transparent about which statements are proven, which are numerically supported, and which are conjectured. The work also includes one-loop RG calculations in the supplement, a feature that strengthens its technical contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I.B, Eq. (9)] The factorized free energy Feff = U0∫d^Dr ∑_i |E^i(r)|^2 is asserted, not derived. The text after Eq. (8) explicitly acknowledges that the (Nc−1) field flavors are not independent and 'must be verified numerically', but the numerical tests in Section II (worm statistics and entropic-force fits) do not directly measure cross-flavor correlations and lack error bars. Since Eq. (9) underpins the central multi-U(1) Coulomb-phase claim and the rooton interaction law Eq. (11), the authors should either (i) supply a symmetry argument: the color-permutation group S_Nc acts as the Weyl group on the Cartan subalgebra, an irreducible representation, forcing any quadratic free energy to be proportional to δ_{ij}∑_i|E^i|^2; or (ii) present direct numerical evidence that ⟨E^i(r)E^j(0)⟩ ∝ δ_{ij} at long wavelengths.
  2. [Section II, Figs. 2 and 4] The Monte Carlo data are presented without statistical uncertainties, lattice sizes, or fit-quality measures. For example, the 2D worm exponent n≈−2.32 is quoted without an error bar, and the entropic-force plots in Fig. 4 show straight-line fits but no residuals, χ², or uncertainty in the Coulomb exponent. The claim that the Nc=6 cubic model behaves 'identically' to Nc=4 models cannot be assessed quantitatively without such information. Please add error bars, specify the lattice sizes and number of samples, and describe the fitting procedure and goodness of fit.
  3. [Section III.D, Eqs. (38)-(41)] The argument for a correlated flux liquid in the V<0 phase relies on a perturbed exactly-solvable model and an exact diagonalization of an 8-site cluster. The authors correctly label this a conjecture, but the phrasing immediately after Eq. (41) — 'must be a flux liquid state' — overstates the evidence. The 8-site cluster cannot rule out symmetry breaking at larger sizes, as the authors themselves note. Please soften the claim or provide additional numerical evidence (e.g., larger clusters, DMRG, or a controlled large-N limit) that the V<0 ground state preserves lattice and color symmetry in the thermodynamic limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract use 'q-state' while the main text uses 'Nc'; unify the notation for clarity.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The state notation in Eq. (16), e.g., '| ; ••⟩', is garbled and unreadable; the typesetting must be fixed.
  3. [Section I.A, after Eq. (8)] The phrase 'all observables must be SO(Nc) singlets' is imprecise; the relevant symmetry is the Weyl group S_Nc acting on the Cartan subalgebra, not the full orthogonal group O(Nc−1).
  4. [Section I.A, Eq. (15)] The expression for the global symmetry group 'U(1)^{⊗(Nc−1)} / (Z2×S_Nc)' is ambiguous; clarify whether the quotient is by the point group of the root lattice or by the Weyl group, and state how the Z2 factor arises.
  5. [Section II.A] The statement that 'for z=1, the assignment of worms to a given color configuration is unique' would benefit from a brief explanation, since in spin ice (z=2) worms are not unique.
  6. [References] Reference [47] is a placeholder 'URL-will-be-inserted-by-publisher'; the supplemental material is included in the arXiv submission, so the reference should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found: the root-charge assignment is an exact Lie-algebraic reformulation, and the factorized Feff of Eq. (9) is an explicitly flagged assumption with numerical support—a gap, not a circular fit.

full rationale

The paper's central algebraic claim is an exact change of variables, not a circular fit. In Section I.A, the simplex field assignment is derived from the requirement that the Potts Hamiltonian equal KΣ_i (Q^i_C)^2 (Eqs. 2–6), not assumed from the su(Nc) conclusion. The statement that a single color flip creates defects with charges ±α follows from the commutator [E^i,R_α]=α^i R_α together with Eq. (2); this is a definitional identification in the benign sense of representation theory, and no parameter is fitted to force the root-charge or multi-U(1) claims. The one genuinely load-bearing assumption is Eq. (9), the factorized effective free energy, which the paper itself flags: "The field flavors are not however independent degrees of freedom, so it must be verified numerically..." (Section I.B). That is a missing analytic proof and a numerical-support limitation, not a circular reduction: the Monte Carlo checks in Section II (worm statistics, entropic forces) test Coulomb signatures without using the parameters of Eq. (9) as inputs. Self-citations to Refs. [21] and [27] supply prior Nc=4 and spin-ice benchmarks, but the novel Nc=6 data and the su(Nc) organization do not reduce to those citations. Accordingly no step meets the threshold for circularity; the low score reflects the unproven factorization assumption rather than any self-referential derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central classical mapping rests on standard su(Nc) mathematics and domain assumptions about the lattice and the ice-rule ground state. The quantum results rest on an approximate GMFT treatment and a conjectured flux-liquid state. Only two hand-chosen normalizations and one non-universal fitted exponent appear as free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Electric field normalization ρ² = (Nc−1)/Nc
    Chosen by hand in Section I.A ('we choose to set K = JQ/2, and ρ² = (Nc−1)/Nc'); sets the length scale of emergent fields but does not affect the root-charge structure.
  • Low-energy root charge normalization |α|² = unknown (2 in microscopic construction)
    Section III.C states 'the normalization |α|² of the root charges is an unknown coupling parameter' in the effective low-energy theory; a free parameter of the effective model.
  • 2D worm length exponent n = ~ −2.32
    Fit to Monte Carlo data for the Nc=4 square-lattice model (Fig. 2); a non-universal exponent used only as a consistency check, not in predictions.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The parent lattice is bipartite
    Required to define sublattice signs η_C in the charge divergence (Eq. 2). All examples use bipartite parents (honeycomb, diamond, cubic).
  • domain assumption Ground-state manifold is exactly the ice-rule configurations with equal color counts
    Assumed throughout; for the models considered (z=1) it follows from proper edge-colorability, but is not proven generally.
  • domain assumption Field flavors are statistically independent in the bulk (factorized free energy, Eq. 9)
    Stated in Section I.B; verified only numerically for Nc=4 and Nc=6 models via worm statistics and entropic interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper GMFT approximation: rotors as complex scalars with constraints enforced only on average
    Introduced in Section III.A; the paper acknowledges 'the standard lattice GMFT procedure employed for quantum spin ice is of limited utility for Nc > 2.'
  • ad hoc to paper The V<0 ground state is a correlated flux liquid
    Explicitly conjectured in Section III.D; supported by exactly solvable models and an 8-site cluster, but not proven.
  • standard math Standard su(Nc) root system and Killing form properties
    Used to compute root inner products (Section I.B) and photon decoupling (Section III.A).
invented entities (2)
  • Rooton independent evidence
    purpose: Charged point-like excitations of Potts ice carrying su(Nc) root charges, generalizing spin-ice monopoles/bions.
    The paper predicts observable signatures — pinch points in the color structure factor and power-law/1/r entropic interactions (Figs. 2, 4) — that are falsifiable in simulations of the model.
  • Flux liquid (V<0 correlated flux ground state) no independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed ground state for negative magnetic-field coupling in quantum Potts ice, with strongly fluctuating plaquette fluxes.
    No direct evidence outside the paper; based on perturbation of exactly solvable models and an 8-site cluster; the paper labels it a conjecture.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26786 in / 14950 out tokens · 147933 ms · 2026-08-03T06:18:51.462067+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $q$-state Potts ice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RXSHJF6

@misc{pith2026260122909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $q$-state Potts ice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RXSHJF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22909}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Classical and quantum spin ice arguably provide the simplest route towards spin liquids and their emergent gauge fields. $q-$state Potts ice models have been constructed that generalize spin ice, hosting multiple emergent $\text{U}(1)$ gauge fields and excitations charged under non-trivial combinations of these fields. We present a general treatment of classical $q-$state Potts ices relating their properties to the $\mathfrak{su}(q)$ Lie algebras, and demonstrate how the properties of charged excitations in the classical model can be related to this symmetry group. We also introduce quantum generalizations of the Potts ice models, and demonstrate how charge flavor changing interactions unique to $q>2$ models dominate their low energy physics. We further show how symmetries inherited from the $\mathfrak{su}(q)$ can lead to flux vacuum frustration, greatly modifying the dynamical properties of charged excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22909 by Mark Potts, Roderich Moessner, S.A. Parameswaran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Various realizations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Worm length statistics for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ground state of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Logarithms of separation frequency divided by the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrams of the root systems for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Phase diagrams for the matter only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Phase diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Progressive condensation of matter fields shown diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Feynman diagrams contributing to the renormalization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. ((a)) Cell complex/ lattice in two dimensions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Action of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Primitive cluster of cubic lattice displaying color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.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

54 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    which normalizes the complex scalar fields to one, as required of rotors. However, for Nc > 2, the algebra obeyed by the rotor operators has a greater structure, and we must also encode relation- ships such as Φ α+β∗ΦαΦβ = 1 so that the theory ‘knows’ about the su(Nc) structure of the excitations. We thus also introduce Lagrange multiplier terms of the for...

  2. [2]

    The expected power law behavior is observed in all cases, with deviations found only for worms of length comparable to the system size. These statistics are obtained through sampling ground state configurations obtained via a Markov chain, wherein the allowed moves are the flipping of colors in a randomly selected worm. Worm lengths are sampled from all wor...

  3. [3]

    (40) With the assumption that the effective Hamiltonian is no longer extensively degenerate, such that local opera- tors cannot lift any remaining ground state degeneracy, the motion of rootons around closed loops must then be associated with excitations of the flux background. This is reminiscent of the behavior of visons in quantum spin ice in the presenc...

  4. [4]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    S. C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson, and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 82 (1989)

    1989

  6. [6]

    Lopez and E

    A. Lopez and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 44, 5246 (1991)

    1991

  7. [7]

    S. C. ZHANG, International Journal of Modern Physics B 06, 25 (1992) , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979292000037

    doi:10.1142/s0217979292000037 1992

  8. [8]

    S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gin- gras, Science 294, 1495 (2001) , 16 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1064761

    doi:10.1126/science.1064761 2001

  9. [9]

    M. J. Harris, S. T. Bramwell, D. F. McMorrow, T. Zeiske, and K. W. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2554 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    D. J. P. Morris, D. A. Tennant, S. A. Grigera, B. Klemke, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, C. Czternasty, M. Meissner, K. C. Rule, J.-U. Hoffmann, K. Kiefer, S. Gerischer, D. Slobinsky, and R. S. Perry, Science 326, 411 (2009) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1178868

    doi:10.1126/science.1178868 2009

  11. [11]

    E. M. Smith, O. Benton, D. R. Yahne, B. Placke, R. Sch¨ afer, J. Gaudet, J. Dudemaine, A. Fitterman, J. Beare, A. R. Wildes, S. Bhattacharya, T. DeLazzer, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, N. P. Butch, R. Movshovich, J. D. Garrett, C. A. Marjerrison, J. P. Clancy, E. Kermarrec, G. M. Luke, A. D. Bianchi, K. A. Ross, and B. D. Gaulin, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021015 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Por´ ee, A

    V. Por´ ee, A. Bhardwaj, E. Lhotel, S. Petit, N. Gauthier, H. Yan, V. Pomjakushin, J. Ollivier, J. A. Quilliam, A. H. Nevidomskyy, H. J. Changlani, and R. Sibille, Phys. Rev. B 112, L180404 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Sibille, N

    R. Sibille, N. Gauthier, E. Lhotel, V. Por´ ee, V. Pom- jakushin, R. A. Ewings, T. G. Perring, J. Ollivier, A. Wildes, C. Ritter, T. C. Hansen, D. A. Keen, G. J. Nilsen, L. Keller, S. Petit, and T. Fennell, Nature Physics 16, 546 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019) , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218- 013401

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218- 2019

  17. [17]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 037202 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Hermele, M

    M. Hermele, M. P. A. Fisher, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064404 (2004)

    2004

  20. [20]

    M. J. P. Gingras and P. A. McClarty, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 056501 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Castelnovo, R

    C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Nature 451, 42 (2008)

    2008

  22. [22]

    Moessner and J

    R. Moessner and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2929 (1998)

    1998

  23. [23]

    Kondev and C

    J. Kondev and C. L. Henley, Phys. Rev. B 52, 6628 (1995)

    1995

  24. [24]

    Khemani, R

    V. Khemani, R. Moessner, S. A. Parameswaran, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 86, 054411 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Chern and C

    G.-W. Chern and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 020601 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Wan and M

    Y. Wan and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. B 94, 174417 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Lozano-G´ omez, Y

    D. Lozano-G´ omez, Y. Iqbal, and M. Vojta, Nature Com- munications 15, 10162 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Hu, Journal of Materials 2013, 836168 (2013) , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2013/836168

    C.-R. Hu, Journal of Materials 2013, 836168 (2013) , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2013/836168

    work page doi:10.1155/2013/836168 2013

  29. [29]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation Theory a First Course (Springer New York, NY, 1991) Chap. 21

    1991

  30. [30]

    L. D. C. Jaubert, M. Haque, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 177202 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    C´ epas and P

    O. C´ epas and P. M. Akhmetiev, SciPost Phys. 7, 032 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    C´ epas and P

    O. C´ epas and P. M. Akhmetiev, SciPost Phys. 10, 042 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    J. K. B. Jr and C. L. Henley, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 30, 8385 (1997)

    1997

  34. [34]

    S. J. Ferreira and A. D. Sokal, Journal of Statistical Physics 96, 461 (1999)

    1999

  35. [35]

    I. A. Ryzhkin, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 101, 481 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    L. D. C. Jaubert and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Nature Physics 5, 258–261 (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    J. N. Hall´ en, S. A. Grigera, D. A. Tennant, C. Castel- novo, and R. Moessner, Science 378, 1218 (2022) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.add1644

    doi:10.1126/science.add1644 2022

  38. [38]

    D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2376 (1988)

    1988

  39. [39]

    Shannon, O

    N. Shannon, O. Sikora, F. Pollmann, K. Penc, and P. Fulde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 067204 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    Kato and S

    Y. Kato and S. Onoda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 077202 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    Huang, Y

    C.-J. Huang, Y. Deng, Y. Wan, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 167202 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    S. Lee, S. Onoda, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 86, 104412 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 87, 205130 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Desrochers and Y

    F. Desrochers and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 066502 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Z. Hao, A. G. R. Day, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. B 90, 214430 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Hooft, Nuclear Physics B 190, 455 (1981)

    G. Hooft, Nuclear Physics B 190, 455 (1981)

    1981

  47. [47]

    Kondo, Phys

    K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7467 (1998)

    1998

  48. [48]

    Polyakov, Physics Letters B 59, 82 (1975)

    A. Polyakov, Physics Letters B 59, 82 (1975)

    1975

  49. [49]

    Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings (1st ed.) (Rout- ledge, 1987)

    A. Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings (1st ed.) (Rout- ledge, 1987)

    1987

  50. [50]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for details on one-loop renormalization of the matter-only GMFT and further details on flux frustration

  51. [51]

    S. H. Simon, Topological Quantum (Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  53. [53]

    Szab´ o and C

    A. Szab´ o and C. Castelnovo, Phys. Rev. B 100, 014417 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Experimentally tunable qed in dipolar-octupolar quantum spin ice,

    A. Sanders, H. Yan, C. Castelnovo, and A. H. Nevidom- skyy, “Experimentally tunable qed in dipolar-octupolar quantum spin ice,” (2024), arXiv:2312.11641 [cond- mat.str-el]. Supplementary material for ‘N-state Potts ices as a route to generalized spin liquids’ Mark Potts, 1 Roderich Moessner, 1 and Siddharth A. Parameswaran 2 1Max Planck Institute for the ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024