Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 123 references

Three-dimensional quantum spin liquids can be stable when local constraints create a gauge manifold that deconfines in 3D.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 03:04 UTC pith:M3DM3Q3R

load-bearing objection Solid organizing review: constraint-first hierarchy for why 3D QSLs can be stable, not fragile; no new theorem, but the synthesis and design criteria are clear and well-cited.

arxiv 2607.03352 v1 pith:M3DM3Q3R submitted 2026-07-03 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

What Makes Three-Dimensional Quantum Spin Liquids Possible?

Yasir Iqbal , Ronny Thomale This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.10.Kt75.10.Jm11.15.Ha
keywords quantum spin liquidsthree-dimensional frustrated magnetsemergent gauge fieldsquantum spin iceCoulomb phasesorder by disorderKitaev spin liquidsmultipolar exchange
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.

This review argues that quantum spin liquids in three dimensions need not be fragile exceptions to the usual tendency of 3D magnets to order. The usual story emphasizes low dimensionality and strong fluctuations; the authors reframe the problem around a different starting point: a locally constrained manifold of low-energy configurations (ice-rule, simplex, or Gauss-law type) rather than a fluctuating ordered magnet. Quantum processes that tunnel inside that manifold can generate an emergent lattice gauge theory. For compact U(1) gauge structure without gapless matter, three dimensions reverse the usual dimensional intuition: monopole instantons generically confine the theory in two dimensions, while a weak-coupling Coulomb phase with a gapless photon and gapped monopoles can be stable over a finite region of parameter space in three dimensions. The paper organizes this into three mechanisms—constraint-first Coulomb phases, weak harmonic order-by-disorder, and spin–orbit or multipolar engineering of the needed kinetics—and closes with diagnostics, candidate materials, and open questions. A sympathetic reader cares because the claim turns 3D from a liability into a possible stabilizer of fractionalized magnetism.

Core claim

Three-dimensional quantum spin liquids arise when local constraints generate a macroscopically large low-energy manifold, dominant quantum processes act within that manifold rather than selecting order, and the resulting gauge structure avoids confinement. For compact U(1) theories without gapless matter, three dimensions admit a stable weak-coupling Coulomb phase over a finite parameter window, so 3D QSLs need not be regarded as fragile exceptions.

What carries the argument

The constraint-first route: local simplex/ice/Gauss-law constraints create an extensive manifold; loop or multipolar tunneling within that manifold restructures the low-energy theory as a compact lattice gauge theory whose defects (monopoles for U(1); flux loops for Z2) determine whether a deconfined regime survives in three dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

Constraint-preserving tunneling must appear at leading nontrivial order and stay competitive with lower-order ordering potentials, disorder, and gauge-breaking terms; if materials generically invert that energy hierarchy, the deconfined window collapses even when classical constraints exist.

What would settle it

In a leading quantum-spin-ice candidate, observe a coherent near-zero-energy linearly dispersing transverse mode with Maxwell-like polarization and quantum-rounded pinch points that evolve under field or pressure as predicted by deconfined gauge theory rather than by disorder-broadened magnons or classical Coulomb freezing.

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

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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review argues that three-dimensional quantum spin liquids need not be fragile exceptions to the ordering tendency of 3D magnets. The central claim is that they arise when (i) local constraints generate a macroscopically large low-energy manifold, (ii) dominant quantum processes act within that manifold rather than selecting conventional order, and (iii) the emergent gauge structure avoids confinement. For compact U(1) without gapless matter, three dimensions reverse the usual dimensional intuition by admitting a stable weak-coupling Coulomb phase over a finite parameter region. The discussion is organized around three mechanisms—constraint-first Coulomb phases, weak harmonic order-by-disorder, and spin–orbit/multipolar engineering of kinetics—followed by design patterns, experimental diagnostics, candidate materials, and open problems.

Significance. If the framing holds, the paper usefully reorients the field away from a low-dimensional fluctuation-first intuition toward a constraint-and-gauge criterion that is specific about when 3D helps rather than hurts. The synthesis is carefully cited (Polyakov; Hermele–Fisher–Balents; Rokhsar–Kivelson; Moessner–Sondhi; Castelnovo–Moessner–Sondhi; Kitaev and 3D extensions) and distinguishes U(1) vs Z2, gapped vs gapless matter, and classical Coulomb phases vs quantum deconfinement. The design hierarchy in §6 (loop connectivity, scale ordering K ~ J±³/Jzz² vs ordering potentials and disorder ≪ K) and the falsification-oriented diagnostics in §7 are practically useful for materials and theory work. As a conceptual review rather than a new derivation, its value is organizational clarity and a structural criterion, not a new theorem; that is appropriate for a progress-report venue.

minor comments (7)
  1. §4.2 title and text use “Klein-Point Logic” without defining Klein models or the Klein point for non-specialists; a one-sentence definition (projector Hamiltonians / equal-amplitude constrained superpositions) would help.
  2. Eq. (13) and the subsequent hierarchy (14)–(17) are clear, but the numerical prefactors and lattice-dependent factors for K and Vz± are only mentioned in passing; a short remark that the inequality is parametric would prevent over-literal reading of K ≳ Vz±.
  3. References [100] and [103] appear to duplicate the same Gao et al. Nat. Phys. 2025 entry; consolidate to avoid double-counting.
  4. Fig. 1(c) caption’s “hyperhoneycomb graph threads the octochlore scaffold” is geometrically suggestive but dense; a brief clause on what is meant by bond-/edge-centered embedding would improve accessibility.
  5. §7.2 lists neutron, thermodynamic, and local probes well; a single sentence on the practical difficulty of isolating the weak photon spectral weight (resolution, nuclear Schottky, backgrounds) already appears later—cross-referencing it earlier would tighten the diagnostic program.
  6. Several 2026 arXiv preprints are cited as supporting “recent” lattice architectures (§8.2); flagging them explicitly as preprints in the text (not only the bibliography) would set expectations for readers.
  7. Minor typographical consistency: “spin–orbit” vs “spin-orbit”, and occasional spacing around U(1)/Z2; standardize throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: conceptual review synthesizes external gauge-theory and spin-ice literature without self-definitional loops or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper is a Reports-on-Progress-style perspective, not a derivation of a new quantitative result. Its central claim—that 3D QSLs arise when local constraints generate a manifold, constraint-preserving kinetics act inside it, and the emergent compact U(1) (or Z2) gauge structure admits a deconfined regime in 3+1D—is assembled from independent, externally established results (Polyakov confinement, Hermele–Fisher–Balents pyrochlore U(1) liquid, Moessner–Sondhi dimer liquids, Castelnovo–Moessner–Sondhi monopoles, Fradkin gauge theory, etc.). No parameter is fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work to force the conclusion; no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. Occasional self-citations (e.g., materials examples PbCuTe2O6, K2Ni2(SO4)3, or related theoretical works) appear among a large body of classical references and serve only as illustrations, not as load-bearing premises. The hierarchy K ∼ J±³/Jzz² ≳ Vz± and disorder ≪ K is stated as a necessary structural criterion, not derived circularly from the target claim. The argument is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper inherits standard condensed-matter and lattice-gauge assumptions rather than introducing free fits or new particles. Load-bearing content is domain theory (compact U(1)/Z2 gauge structure, ice-rule manifolds, perturbative ring exchange) plus the structural claim that real materials can realize the required scale hierarchy. No numerical free parameters are fitted to data.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Compact U(1) lattice gauge theory without gapless matter is generically confined in 2+1D by monopole instantons but admits a stable weak-coupling Coulomb phase in 3+1D with a photon and gapped monopoles.
    Invoked throughout §§1 and 3.3 as the dimensional stabilizer; standard Polyakov/Fradkin/Hermele–Fisher–Balents lore.
  • domain assumption Local simplex/ice-rule constraints on corner-sharing lattices generate an extensive classical manifold describable by a divergence-free (Gauss-law) field.
    Foundation of Mechanism I (§3.1); classical spin ice / pyrochlore Coulomb phase.
  • domain assumption Transverse exchange generates constraint-preserving ring exchange at order K ~ J±^n / Jzz^{n-1} (n=3 for hexagonal pyrochlore loops) that can dominate over lower-order ordering potentials in a finite window.
    Used in §§3.2 and 6.2 to define the liquid island; standard degenerate perturbation theory for quantum spin ice.
  • domain assumption In constraint-dominated manifolds connected by local rearrangements, harmonic order-by-disorder selection is often subextensive or parametrically weak.
    Mechanism II (§4); based on Henley and related semiclassical analyses.
  • domain assumption Spin–orbit entanglement and crystal-field doublets can encode multipolar operators that supply symmetry-allowed transverse kinetics within ice-like manifolds.
    Mechanism III (§5); standard rare-earth pyrochlore exchange theory.
  • domain assumption Absence of Bragg peaks plus constraint-consistent correlations and deconfined spectral features can, under cross-tuning, diagnose a 3D QSL versus disorder or classical Coulomb regimes.
    Diagnostics section (§7); operational experimental criterion, not a theorem.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 37175 in / 3170 out tokens · 28609 ms · 2026-07-12T03:04:48.272202+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum spin liquids are often introduced through a low-dimensional intuition: weak coordination and strong zero-point motion frustrate conventional magnetic order. This view has shaped much of the field, but it misses another route to quantum disorder. In many frustrated magnets, the more natural starting point is not a fluctuating version of an ordered state, but a locally constrained manifold of low-energy configurations. Within such a manifold, quantum dynamics can generate an emergent gauge theory, with fractionalized excitations and collective modes absent in ordinary magnets. Here we ask why such phases can be stable in three spatial dimensions. We argue that three-dimensional quantum spin liquids need not be regarded as fragile exceptions to the tendency of 3D magnets to order. They can arise when local constraints suppress premature order selection, coherent tunneling processes connect the constrained manifold, and the topology of gauge defects permits a deconfined regime. For compact gauge theories, three dimensions can even reverse the usual dimensional intuition: regimes that are unstable or fine-tuned in lower dimensions may become stable over finite regions of parameter space. We organize the discussion around constraint-driven Coulomb phases, weak harmonic order-by-disorder selection, and the role of spin-orbit or multipolar interactions in generating the required microscopic dynamics. We close with experimental diagnostics, candidate materials, and open theoretical questions for three-dimensional quantum spin liquids

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03352 by Ronny Thomale, Yasir Iqbal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-dimensional lattice architectures for constraint- and gauge-based routes to quantum spin liquids. (a) The pyrochlore lattice is formed from corner-sharing tetrahedra and provides the standard three-dimensional platform for classical spin ice, Coulomb phases, and quantum spin ice. The local tetrahedral constraint is the microscopic origin of the two-in/two-out rule, emergent magnetic charges, and the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Historical sequence of ideas leading to modern three-dimensional quantum spin liquids. The progression runs from early recognition of frustration and macroscopic degeneracy, through Anderson’s RVB proposal and the emergence of topological and fractionalization language, to the Rokhsar–Kivelson dimer bottleneck and its resolution in finite-window liquid phases, culminating in the realization that three dime… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mechanism I: constraint-first stabilization hierarchy for three-dimensional QSLs. Dominant interactions enforce local constraints, generating an extensive manifold; symmetry-allowed transverse or multipolar processes generate dynamics within that manifold; and the low-energy theory may be recast as a compact lattice gauge theory. The role of dimensionality is gauge-structure dependent. For compact U(1) gau… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Microscopic origin of loop dynamics in quantum spin ice. In the XXZ limit, the dominant Jzz term enforces the ice-rule manifold, while a transverse exchange J± creates virtual pairs of defects violating the ice rule at an energy cost ∆E ∼ Jzz. Through a sequence of virtual processes, these defects propagate around a closed hexagonal loop and recombine, generating an effective ring-exchange process of order… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of noncanonical three-dimensional frustrated architectures discussed in the text. (a) Hyper-hyperkagome magnetic structure relevant to PbCuTe2O6, drawn from the crystallographically equivalent Cu2+ sites with the dominant first- and second-neighbor interactions. One set of bonds forms isolated triangles, while the other generates the connected three-dimensional network of corner-sharing triangles.… 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

123 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balents L 2010Nature (London)464199–208 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08917

    doi:10.1038/nature08917

  2. [2]

    Savary L and Balents L 2016Rep. Prog. Phys.80016502 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/80/1/016502

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/80/1/016502

  3. [3]

    Fradkin E 2013Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics2nd ed (Cambridge University Press) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139015509

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139015509

  4. [4]

    Wen X G 1990Int. J. Mod. Phys. B04239–271 URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979290000139

    doi:10.1142/s0217979290000139

  5. [5]

    Wen X G 2002Phys. Rev. B65(16) 165113 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.165113

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.65.165113

  6. [6]

    Sachdev S 2018Rep. Prog. Phys.82014001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aae110

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aae110

  7. [7]

    Polyakov A 1977Nucl. Phys. B120429–458 ISSN 0550-3213 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321377900864

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Hermele M, Fisher M P A and Balents L 2004Phys. Rev. B69(6) 064404 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.064404

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.69.064404

  9. [9]

    Pomeranchuk I 1941Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.11226

  10. [10]

    Scr.198989 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/1989/T27/014

    Dzyaloshinskii I 1989Phys. Scr.198989 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/1989/T27/014

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/1989/t27/014 1989

  11. [11]

    Rudnitskii V 1942Zh. e’ksp. teor. Fiz.12cited from an English translation of the original Russian article

  12. [12]

    Anderson P 1973Mater. Res. Bull.8153–160 ISSN 0025-5408 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025540873901670

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    Mag.35623–639 URL https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437708235995

    Sütő A and Fazekas P 1977Philos. Mag.35623–639 URL https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437708235995

    work page doi:10.1080/14786437708235995

  14. [14]

    Kivelson S A, Rokhsar D S and Sethna J P 1987Phys. Rev. B35(16) 8865–8868 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.35.8865 24 IOP PublishingReports on Progress in PhysicsIqbal and Thomale

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.35.8865

  15. [15]

    Kalmeyer V and Laughlin R B 1987Phys. Rev. Lett.59(18) 2095–2098 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2095

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2095 2095

  16. [16]

    Greiter M and Thomale R 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.102(20) 207203 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.207203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.207203

  17. [17]

    Wen X G 1991Phys. Rev. B44(6) 2664–2672 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.44.2664

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.44.2664

  18. [18]

    Anderson P W 1987Science2351196–1198 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.235.4793.1196

    doi:10.1126/science.235.4793.1196

  19. [19]

    Read N and Sachdev S 1989Phys. Rev. Lett.62(14) 1694–1697 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1694

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.1694

  20. [20]

    Read N and Sachdev S 1991Phys. Rev. Lett.66(13) 1773–1776 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.1773

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.66.1773

  21. [21]

    Sachdev S 1992Phys. Rev. B45(21) 12377–12396 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.12377

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.45.12377

  22. [22]

    Sklan S R and Henley C L 2013Phys. Rev. B88(2) 024407 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.024407

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.88.024407

  23. [23]

    Stern M, Burke M D, Gingras M J P, Romhányi J and Chung K T K 2026 Fracton Spin Liquid and Exotic Frustrated Phases in Ising-like Octochlore Magnets (Preprint2603.12313) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12313

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Mandal S and Surendran N 2009Phys. Rev. B79(2) 024426 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.024426

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.024426

  25. [25]

    Takayama T, Kato A, Dinnebier R, Nuss J, Kono H, Veiga L S I, Fabbris G, Haskel D and Takagi H 2015Phys. Rev. Lett.114(7) 077202 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.077202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.077202

  26. [26]

    O’Brien K, Hermanns M and Trebst S 2016Phys. Rev. B93(8) 085101 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.085101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.085101

  27. [27]

    Moessner R and Chalker J T 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.80(13) 2929–2932 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2929

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.2929

  28. [28]

    Moessner R and Chalker J T 1998Phys. Rev. B58(18) 12049–12062 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.58.12049

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.58.12049

  29. [29]

    Canals B and Lacroix C 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.80(13) 2933 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2933

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.2933

  30. [30]

    Canals B and Lacroix C 2000Phys. Rev. B61(2) 1149 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.1149

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.61.1149

  31. [31]

    Moessner R and Ramirez A P 2006Physics Today5924–29 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2186278

    doi:10.1063/1.2186278

  32. [32]

    Rokhsar D S and Kivelson S A 1988Phys. Rev. Lett.61(20) 2376–2379 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.2376

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.61.2376

  33. [33]

    Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2002Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.14537–42 ISSN 0375-9687 URL https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.145.37

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.145.37

  34. [34]

    Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2001Phys. Rev. Lett.86(9) 1881–1884 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1881

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.1881

  35. [35]

    Fendley P, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2002Phys. Rev. B66(21) 214513 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.214513

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.214513

  36. [36]

    Henley C L 2004J. Phys. Condens. Matter16S891 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/16/11/045 25 IOP PublishingReports on Progress in PhysicsIqbal and Thomale

    doi:10.1088/0953-8984/16/11/045

  37. [37]

    Huse D A, Krauth W, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2003Phys. Rev. Lett.91(16) 167004 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.167004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.167004

  38. [38]

    Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2003Phys. Rev. B68(18) 184512 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.184512

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.68.184512

  39. [39]

    Castelnovo C, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2008Nature (London)45142–45 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06433

    doi:10.1038/nature06433

  40. [40]

    Gingras M J P and McClarty P A 2014Rep. Prog. Phys.77056501 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/77/5/056501

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/5/056501

  41. [41]

    Savary L and Balents L 2012Phys. Rev. Lett.108(3) 037202 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.037202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.037202

  42. [42]

    Nasu J, Kaji T, Matsuura K, Udagawa M and Motome Y 2014Phys. Rev. B89(11) 115125 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.115125

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.115125

  43. [43]

    Rev.79(2) 357–364 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.79.357

    Wannier G H 1950Phys. Rev.79(2) 357–364 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.79.357

    doi:10.1103/physrev.79.357

  44. [44]

    Toulouse G 1977Theory of the frustration effect in spin glasses: Ipp 99–103 URL https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789812799371_0009

    work page doi:10.1142/9789812799371_0009

  45. [45]

    Vannimenus J and Toulouse G 1977J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.10L537 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/10/18/008

    doi:10.1088/0022-3719/10/18/008

  46. [46]

    Rev.102(4) 1008–1013 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.102.1008

    Anderson P W 1956Phys. Rev.102(4) 1008–1013 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.102.1008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.102.1008

  47. [47]

    Obradors X, Labarta A, Isalgué A, Tejada J, Rodriguez J and Pernet M 1988Solid State Commun.65189–192 ISSN 0038-1098 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003810988890885X

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Ramirez A P 1994Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.24453–480 ISSN 1545-4118 URLhttps: //www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ms.24.080194.002321

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ms.24.080194.002321

  49. [49]

    Villain J 1977J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.101717 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/10/10/014

    doi:10.1088/0022-3719/10/10/014

  50. [50]

    Villain J 1979Z. Phys. B3331 ISSN 1431-584X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01325811

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01325811

  51. [51]

    J Villain, R Bidaux, J-P Carton and R Conte 1980J. Phys. II (France)411263 URL https://doi.org/10.1051/jphys:0198000410110126300

    doi:10.1051/jphys:0198000410110126300

  52. [52]

    Liebmann R 1986Statistical Mechanics of Periodic Frustrated Ising Systems(Lecture Notes in Physicsvol 251) (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag) ISBN 978-3-540-16473-9 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-16473-1

    doi:10.1007/3-540-16473-1

  53. [53]

    Chakravarty S, Halperin B I and Nelson D R 1989Phys. Rev. B39(4) 2344–2371 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.39.2344

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.39.2344

  54. [54]

    Yasuda C, Todo S, Hukushima K, Alet F, Keller M, Troyer M and Takayama H 2005Phys. Rev. Lett.94(21) 217201 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.217201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.217201

  55. [55]

    Benton O, Sikora O and Shannon N 2012Phys. Rev. B86(7) 075154 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075154

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.075154

  56. [56]

    Kimchi I, Analytis J G and Vishwanath A 2014Phys. Rev. B90(20) 205126 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.205126

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.205126

  57. [57]

    Affleck I, Kennedy T, Lieb E H and Tasaki H 1987Phys. Rev. Lett.59(7) 799–802 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.799

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.799

  58. [58]

    Arovas D P, Auerbach A and Haldane F D M 1988Phys. Rev. Lett.60(6) 531–534 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.531 26 IOP PublishingReports on Progress in PhysicsIqbal and Thomale

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.60.531

  59. [59]

    Parameswaran S A, Sondhi S L and Arovas D P 2009Phys. Rev. B79(2) 024408 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.024408

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.024408

  60. [60]

    Normand B and Nussinov Z 2014Phys. Rev. Lett.112(20) 207202 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.207202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.207202

  61. [61]

    Commun.112348 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15594-1

    Chillal S, Iqbal Y, Jeschke H O, Rodriguez-Rivera J A, Bewley R, Manuel P, Khalyavin D, Steffens P, Thomale R, Islam A T M N, Reuther J and Lake B 2020Nat. Commun.112348 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15594-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15594-1

  62. [62]

    Commun.157191 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51362-1

    Gonzalez M G, Noculak V, Sharma A, Favre V, Soh J R, Magrez A, Bewley R, Jeschke H O, Reuther J, Rønnow H M, Iqbal Y and Živković I 2024Nat. Commun.157191 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51362-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51362-1

  63. [63]

    Živković I, Favre V, Salazar Mejia C, Jeschke H O, Magrez A, Dabholkar B, Noculak V, Freitas R S, Jeong M, Hegde N G, Testa L, Babkevich P, Su Y, Manuel P, Luetkens H, Baines C, Baker P J, Wosnitza J, Zaharko O, Iqbal Y, Reuther J and Rønnow H M 2021Phys. Rev. Lett.127(15) 157204 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.157204

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.157204

  64. [64]

    Kitaev A 2006Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)3212–111 ISSN 0003-4916 january Special Issue URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491605002381

  65. [65]

    Rep.9501–37 ISSN 0370-1573 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157321004051

    Trebst S and Hickey C 2022Phys. Rep.9501–37 ISSN 0370-1573 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157321004051

  66. [66]

    Eschmann T, Mishchenko P A, Bojesen T A, Kato Y, Hermanns M, Motome Y and Trebst S 2019Phys. Rev. Res.1(3) 032011 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.032011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.032011

  67. [67]

    Mishchenko P A, Kato Y and Motome Y 2017Phys. Rev. B96(12) 125124 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.125124

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.125124

  68. [68]

    Smith A, Knolle J, Kovrizhin D L, Chalker J T and Moessner R 2015Phys. Rev. B92(18) 180408 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.180408

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.180408

  69. [69]

    Smith A, Knolle J, Kovrizhin D L, Chalker J T and Moessner R 2016Phys. Rev. B93(23) 235146 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.235146

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.235146

  70. [70]

    Perreault B, Knolle J, Perkins N B and Burnell F J 2015Phys. Rev. B92(9) 094439 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.094439

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.094439

  71. [71]

    Commun.712286 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12286

    Glamazda A, Lemmens P, Do S H, Choi Y S and Choi K Y 2016Nat. Commun.712286 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12286

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12286

  72. [72]

    Isakov S V, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2005Phys. Rev. Lett.95(21) 217201 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.217201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.217201

  73. [73]

    Henley C L 2010Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.1179–210 ISSN 1947-5462 URL https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-070909-104138

    1947

  74. [74]

    Fennell T, Deen P P, Wildes A R, Schmalzl K, Prabhakaran D, Boothroyd A T, Aldus R J, McMorrow D F and Bramwell S T 2009Science326415–417 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1177582

    doi:10.1126/science.1177582

  75. [75]

    Shannon N, Sikora O, Pollmann F, Penc K and Fulde P 2012Phys. Rev. Lett.108(6) 067204 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.067204

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.067204

  76. [76]

    Wegner F J 1971J. Math. Phys.122259–2272 ISSN 0022-2488 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665530

    doi:10.1063/1.1665530

  77. [77]

    Henley C L 1989Phys. Rev. Lett.62(17) 2056–2059 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2056

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.2056 2056

  78. [78]

    Reimers J N 1992Phys. Rev. B45(13) 7287–7294 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.7287 27 IOP PublishingReports on Progress in PhysicsIqbal and Thomale

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.45.7287

  79. [79]

    Harris M J, Bramwell S T, McMorrow D F, Zeiske T and Godfrey K W 1997Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(13) 2554–2557 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2554

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.2554

  80. [80]

    Bramwell S T and Gingras M J P 2001Science2941495–1501 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1064761

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1064761

Showing first 80 references.