Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

In a disordered frustrated bilayer magnet, the quantum spin-glass transition is governed by sparse, nearly collinear, low-barrier moment islands, making the glass 'doubly weak' and suppressing the amplitude (Higgs) mode.

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 ↗

In a disordered triangular bilayer Heisenberg magnet, theory predicts a quantum spin glass whose near-critical order is sparse and nearly collinear — 'doubly weak' — with strongly suppressed amplitude (Higgs) mode weight.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Worth a referee's time, but the caveat in the stress test is the whole ballgame: every phase boundary is quoted relative to Kc0=J/3, which is ~3.6x below the established clean Kc≈1.2J, and the paper never shows the glass phase survives at physical couplings. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26151 v1 pith:B5VZPJUX submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.dis-nn

Quantum spin-glass criticality in disordered frustrated dimer magnets

Darshan G. Joshi , Matthias Vojta This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords Quantum spin glassbond disorderdimer magnetquantum phase transitiontriangular lattice bilayerbond-operator theoryHiggs moderare regions
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

The paper studies a triangular-lattice bilayer Heisenberg magnet with random intralayer bonds, a setting relevant to real coupled-dimer compounds. It claims that any finite bond disorder destroys the clean 120-degree antiferromagnetic order and replaces it with a zero-temperature quantum spin glass, so the system undergoes a quantum phase transition between a dimer paramagnet and a spin glass. The central discovery is what the glass looks like near that transition: ordered moment amplitudes are sparse and broadly distributed, spin directions become nearly collinear, and the energy landscape has only low barriers. The paper calls this 'doubly weak' glassiness and argues it is a general property of spin-glass quantum criticality, with low-energy modes that localize and a Higgs (amplitude) mode whose spectral weight is suppressed by phase randomization. It also locates the transition quantitatively and acknowledges that its approximation cannot settle the asymptotic critical behavior or a possible intervening Mott-glass phase.

Core claim

The paper establishes that in a bond-disordered frustrated bilayer magnet, the clean non-collinear 120-degree ordered state is replaced by a quantum spin glass, and the transition out of that glass into a dimer paramagnet is controlled by rare, inhomogeneous moment islands. Near the critical point, average ordered moments are small and non-collinearities are suppressed, so the system is only weakly frustrated and energy barriers between the many metastable states are low; the paper calls this 'doubly weak' glassiness. The low-energy excitations show strong spatial localization, and the amplitude (Higgs) mode, clearly present in the clean ordered magnet, loses most of its spectral weight when

What carries the argument

The central tool is a real-space SU(4) bond-operator theory: for each disorder realization, a self-consistent dimer product state (saddle point) is found by iterating local mean-field equations, and Gaussian fluctuations around it are computed via a bosonic Bogoliubov diagonalization. This yields the Edwards-Anderson spin-glass order parameter, distributions of local moments and spin chiralities, saddle-point energy landscapes, dynamic spin and bond susceptibilities, and inverse participation ratios. The key mechanism is the one that creates doubly weak glassiness: near the transition, large moments are so sparse that triangles rarely host three comparable moments, so local frustration—and h

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a linearized bond-operator calculation—a self-consistent product state plus Gaussian fluctuations, with mode-coupling terms and the hard-core triplon constraint neglected—correctly produces a stable zero-temperature spin glass and its near-critical character; the paper itself notes that the clean-limit transition point in this approximation is far below established values and that a possible gapless Mott-glass region is invisible to it.

What would settle it

An unbiased numerical simulation (quantum Monte Carlo or tensor-network) of the disordered triangular bilayer Heisenberg model that resolves the thermodynamic limit: if the Edwards-Anderson order parameter extrapolates to zero for parameters where the paper predicts a spin glass, the central claim fails; likewise, if the true phase is a gapless non-glassy Mott glass, the 'doubly weak' picture is not the whole story.

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

If this is right

  • For any finite intralayer bond disorder, the non-collinear 120-degree order is destroyed and replaced by a spin glass; the transition to the dimer paramagnet remains sharp, occurring within the approximation at K/Kc0 = 0.991(5), 0.903(4), and 0.805(8) for λK = 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9.
  • Near the transition, the spin glass is weakly glassy in two senses at once: moments are small and spin directions are nearly collinear, so frustration and energy barriers are low, and rare ordered islands dominate the critical region.
  • The low-energy spin excitations in the near-critical glass tend to be spatially localized, producing broad, structureless features in the dynamic structure factor rather than sharp magnon peaks.
  • The amplitude (Higgs) mode, visible in the clean ordered magnet, loses most of its spectral weight when intralayer disorder is present because disorder randomizes the phase of the singlet correlations; interlayer disorder does not produce this effect.
  • In three dimensions, the same model should exhibit a finite-temperature spin-glass transition whose glass temperature vanishes at the quantum critical point, making these predictions testable in pressure-tunable dimer compounds.
  • The distribution of local moment amplitudes becomes broad on a logarithmic scale near the transition, and a finite-size analysis of the Edwards-Anderson parameter places the transition consistently with the moment-distribution analysis, while the fitted critical exponent deviates strongly from mean-field behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If 'doubly weak' glassiness is generic, then finite-size or short-time experiments near a quantum spin-glass transition will see slow dynamics and broad distributions of local moments but very small frozen moments; standard spin-glass signatures such as strong remanence may be almost invisible.
  • The paper's approximation cannot see the gapless, non-glassy Mott-glass phase it mentions as a possible intermediate state. If such a phase actually exists between the dimer and spin-glass states, the true phase diagram and the nature of the critical point would differ from the one presented here.
  • The proposed interference mechanism for the Higgs mode suggests a clean test: dope a frustrated bilayer dimer compound with intralayer bond disorder and measure the bond-bond dynamic susceptibility; a strong drop in amplitude-mode weight would support the mechanism, while a surviving Higgs mode would point to additional physics.
  • The result connects naturally to questions about quantum annealing and other disordered quantum magnets: continuous-symmetry spin glasses with weak frustration near a quantum critical point may show much weaker dynamical slowing than the transverse-field Ising case, which could matter for how such systems equilibrate.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Hamiltonian (1), a triangular-lattice bilayer Heisenberg model with intralayer and interlayer bond disorder. Using a real-space SU(4) bond-operator (dimer parton) approach truncated at saddle-point plus Gaussian level, the authors locate a zero-temperature quantum phase transition between a dimer paramagnet and a quantum spin glass, with phase boundaries quoted as Kc/Kc0 = 0.991(5), 0.903(4), 0.805(8) for λK = 0.1, 0.5, 0.9. They characterize the near-critical spin glass as 'doubly weak': average ordered moments are small, non-collinearities are suppressed, and the energy landscape has low barriers. They also compute the dynamical spin and bond susceptibilities, inverse participation ratios, and low-energy density of states, and attribute the suppression of the Higgs-mode spectral weight to intralayer-disorder-induced phase randomization. The main text and the extensive supplement present numerical results for box and bimodal disorder, with the phase transition located both by the Edwards-Anderson order parameter and by moment distributions, which agree.

Significance. If the central phase diagram and the 'doubly weak' characterization are correct, the paper would be a valuable step forward: it provides one of the first concrete treatments of a continuous-symmetry quantum spin-glass transition in a realistic two-dimensional lattice model, with detailed predictions for spectra, localization, and the fate of the Higgs mode. The paper is honest about its limitations, explicitly noting the mean-field nature of the approximation, the inability to determine asymptotic critical behavior, and the possible intervening Mott glass. The use of two independent transition locators and the extensive numerical data in the supplement are strengths. However, the entire phase diagram and all near-critical properties are computed at saddle-point/Gaussian level, and the clean-limit critical coupling in this approximation is Kc0 = J/3, a factor of roughly 3.6 below the established series-expansion value Kc/J ≈ 1.2. This discrepancy is not a presentation issue but a load-bearing concern for the claim that the predicted spin-glass phase exists at physical couplings.

major comments (4)
  1. [Phases and QPT, Eq. (S14)] The phase boundaries are quoted relative to Kc0 = J/3, the clean-limit transition of the linearized bond-operator theory. For λK = 0.1 the predicted dimer-to-spin-glass transition is at K/Kc0 = 0.991, i.e. K/J ≈ 0.33. At this physical coupling the clean model is deep in the gapped dimer phase (series expansion gives Kc/J ≈ 1.2, Ref. 34), and bond disorder is expected to be irrelevant because the clean gap is large. The paper itself notes that bond-operator mean field gives K/J ≈ 6.6 and Brueckner corrections shift the clean transition only to K/J ≈ 0.59. Since the saddle-point ground state is the basis for all static and dynamic results, the existence of a genuine quantum spin-glass phase at these couplings, and all properties derived from it, may be artifacts of the approximation. The authors acknowledge the discrepancy but do not provide any independent evidence that the topology of th
  2. [Glassiness and Supplement IV] The central assertion of 'doubly weak' glassiness is extracted entirely from saddle-point product states: small local moments, suppressed non-collinearities, and low energy barriers between different converged mean-field states. The energy barriers shown in Fig. S5 are barriers between variational product states, not true quantum barriers; Gaussian fluctuations and H3/H4 mode-coupling terms, which are neglected, can in principle change the landscape qualitatively. Near the mean-field critical point the condensate parameter λ vanishes by construction, so small moments and reduced frustration may simply be consequences of approaching the artificial Gaussian critical point rather than a physical property of the quantum spin glass. Please provide either fluctuation corrections to the order parameter and barrier estimates, or a separate diagnostic (such as a quantum Monte Carlo or tensor-netw
  3. [Phases and QPT, Supplement III] For weak disorder the magnetic correlation length is exponentially large (as stated in the main text with Ref. 39) and exceeds the available system sizes. The finite-size scaling of the E-A order parameter for λK = 0.1 therefore may be dominated by finite-size ordered regions, making the quoted Kc/Kc0 = 0.991(5) unreliable. The paper itself notes that for weak disorder 'the magnetic correlation length is larger than the available system sizes'. The agreement between the E-A and moment-distribution locators does not resolve this issue, because both are computed from the same saddle-point states on the same finite lattices. I would like to see either larger system sizes, a disorder-strength-dependent extrapolation, or an analysis that explicitly separates finite-size ordered clusters from true spin-glass order.
  4. [Conclusions and Supplement III] The paper's phase diagram, Fig. 1(b), includes a possible intervening Mott glass, and the text states that this regime is 'invisible to our approximation'. If a gapless non-glass Mott phase intervenes between the dimer paramagnet and the spin glass, then the transition located by the E-A order parameter is not the direct dimer-to-spin-glass QPT claimed in the title and abstract. The authors are candid about this limitation, but it remains a load-bearing uncertainty for the central claim. A more detailed discussion of what would be needed to detect the Mott glass within or beyond the current approximation would help the reader calibrate the scope of the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplement I, Eq. (S15)] The text writes 'all four states |t0...4>' but the dimer space is four-dimensional; this should read |t0...3>.
  2. [References, Ref. 55] The supplement reference contains the placeholder 'also contains Refs. ???' in the main text. This must be completed before submission.
  3. [References, Ref. 62] There is a typo in 'Phys. Rev. Lett118' — the volume number is missing a space.
  4. [Fig. 2(b)] The quoted error bars (0.991(5) etc.) do not have a stated origin. Please specify whether they come from the finite-size fits, from disorder averaging, or from a combination, and how many realizations were used for the weak-disorder point.
  5. [Supplement VII] The density-of-states exponents κ = 2, 1.4, 1 in Fig. S9 are presented with dashed guide lines, but the text notes that finite-size effects hamper a precise determination of the asymptotic low-energy behavior and that the apparent ρ(ω) ∝ ω may be a crossover. Please state clearly in the main text which of these claims are asymptotic and which are intermediate-scale observations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase diagram, order parameters, and spectra are computed from the stated model, not imported or fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. All claimed results — the E-A order parameter and phase boundaries (Fig. 2), local-moment and angle distributions (Figs. 3, 4), saddle-point energy histograms (Fig. S5), dynamic spin and bond susceptibilities, IPR and DOS (Figs. 5, 6, S7–S10) — are computed numerically in this paper from the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) using the real-space bond-operator scheme detailed in the supplement. No target quantity is used as an input: the couplings (J, K, λK) are specified a priori, the saddle-point states come from iterating the mean-field equations (S1), and Gaussian fluctuations come from diagonalizing the H2 matrix (S7). The self-citations (Refs 39, 51–54) support the method and the premise that bond disorder destroys 120° order, but that premise is additionally backed by external Refs 40–41 and by the paper's own structure-factor analysis showing no long-range order. The clean-limit Kc0 = J/3 is the output of the same linearized approximation, explicitly compared with the series-expansion value K/J ≈ 1.2 (Ref 34), so it is a caveat to quantitative accuracy rather than a fitted prediction. The 'doubly weak glassiness' is a characterization of the computed saddle-point ensemble (small moments, collinear angle distribution, low spread of saddle-point energies); it is approximation-dependent but not equivalent to an input by construction. The paper's own stated limitations — inability to determine asymptotic critical behavior, the Mott-glass regime being invisible to the approximation, and the mean-field nature of the method — are correctness risks, not circularity. The energy-barrier statement is an inference from saddle-point energy histograms rather than a direct computation of barrier heights, but again this is an evidence gap, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows what the reader pays for upstream: the existence of the spin-glass phase is inherited from the same group's prior disorder-destruction result (Ref 39) plus the present mean-field calculation; the method's harmonic level neglects mode coupling; all quantitative scales are anchored to Kc0 = J/3, an approximation artifact rather than the physical clean transition (≈1.2J). No invented entities. Free parameters are model inputs (disorder widths, bimodal parameters), one calibration artifact (Kc0), and fitted DOS exponents of secondary status.

free parameters (4)
  • clean-limit reference scale Kc0 = J/3 = J/3 (≈0.333J)
    All coupling ratios and transition locations are quoted relative to this value, which is an artifact of the linearized bond-operator approximation; the established clean transition is K/J≈1.2 (Ref 34). This is effectively a calibration choice that shifts the entire reported phase diagram.
  • disorder strengths λK, λJ = λK ∈ {0.1, 0.5, 0.9}; λJ = 0 in main runs
    Box-type disorder widths chosen by hand; scanned, not fitted to any target. They set the disorder axis of the phase diagram.
  • bimodal disorder parameters (α,p; β,p′) for intralayer/interlayer bonds = β=0.5,p′=0.3; β=15,p′=0.5; α=0.1,p=0.5
    Supplement Sec. IX; chosen model inputs for bimodal disorder, used for qualitative illustrations only.
  • DOS power-law exponents κ = ≈2 (K/Kc0=0.79), 1.4 (0.83), 1 (3.0)
    Fit to intermediate-energy windows of the computed DOS (Fig. S9); the authors explicitly state asymptotic exponents are undetermined due to finite-size limitations. These are characterization outputs, not inputs to the central claim.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Ordered phases require an SU(4)-rotated dimer basis with a condensate; the saddle-point product state |ψ̃0⟩ = ⊗|t̃0⟩ is the variational ground state
    Supplement Sec. I.A: the iterative dimer mean-field solution (Eq. S1) defines the basis; the claim that this captures the glass state's low-energy physics is an approximation the central results rest on.
  • domain assumption Bond disorder is a relevant perturbation that destroys the clean 120° order in d=2, yielding a spin glass at infinitesimal disorder
    Main text 'Quenched disorder' section, citing Refs 39–41 (incl. same-group work); the entire glass-side analysis presupposes this.
  • domain assumption Hard-core triplon constraint is relaxed; H3 and H4 interaction terms are neglected
    Supplement Sec. I.B: 'H3,4 correspond to mode–mode coupling terms and are neglected in the treatment'; the harmonic approximation is the backbone of all spectra and DOS.
  • domain assumption The replicated Edwards–Anderson order parameter (Eq. S11), computed at saddle-point level and extrapolated in L, identifies a genuine quantum spin-glass phase in 2D
    Main text 'Phases and QPT' and Supplement Sec. III; existence of the 2D quantum Heisenberg spin-glass phase is not established beyond mean field (the linear-ω DOS agreement with Halperin–Saslow is admitted to be 'likely fortuitous' given Anderson localization).
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling of up-to-30×30-dimer systems with 25–50 disorder realizations captures the qualitative near-critical physics
    Main text Figs 2–3; rare-region Griffiths physics requires exponentially large systems, acknowledged by the authors ('unable to determine the asymptotic critical behavior').
  • domain assumption A Mott-glass intermediate region, if it exists, does not alter the reported dimer–SG transition
    Main text: 'the Mott-glass regime is invisible to our approximation.' The phase diagram (Fig. 1b) draws the Mott glass, but the numerics cannot resolve it.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum spin-glass criticality in disordered frustrated dimer magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5VZPJUX

@misc{pith2026260726151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum spin-glass criticality in disordered frustrated dimer magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5VZPJUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26151}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study quantum phase transitions of Mott insulators between spin-glass and featureless paramagnetic phases. Specifically, we consider a triangular-lattice bilayer Heisenberg model with bond disorder. The clean system has two phases, a dimer quantum paramagnet and a non-collinear antiferromagnet, separated by a quantum critical point. Bond disorder destroys the antiferromagnetic phase via the interference of dipolar textures and results in spin-glass order, such that the system features a quantum phase transition between spin-glass and dimer phases. We study the vicinity of this transition using a variant of bond-operator theory and calculate thermodynamic observables as well as excitation spectra. Bond disorder leads to strong inhomogeneities near the transition which suppresses non-collinearities and leads to anomalously weak glassiness in the near-critical quantum spin glass. We characterize the low-energy excitations which have a strong tendency towards spatial localization, and we track the behavior of the amplitude (i.e. Higgs) mode across the glass phase whose spectral weight we find to be strongly suppressed due to interference effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26151 by Darshan G. Joshi, Matthias Vojta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Bilayer triangular lattice Heisenberg model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Histograms of the local-moment amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Histograms of angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For large K/J the distributions display max￾ima corresponding to 120◦ order which get progressively smeared with disorder. However, upon approaching the spin-glass QCP with decreasing K the character of the distribution changes qualitatively, with maxima now oc￾curring at relative angles θij = 0, π, i.e, ⃗νij = 0. The re￾markable conclusion is that the system is more collinear and hence effectively less fr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamical spin susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamical bond susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.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

88 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Villain, Insulating spin glasses, Z

    J. Villain, Insulating spin glasses, Z. Phys. B33, 31 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    K. H. Fischer and J. Hertz,Spin Glasses(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    M´ ezard, G

    M. M´ ezard, G. Parisi, and M. A. Virasoro,Spin Glass Theory and Beyond(World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)

    1987

  4. [4]

    Sherrington and S

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Solvable model of a spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, Theory of spin glasses, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.5, 965 (1975)

    1975

  6. [6]

    Mezard, G

    M. Mezard, G. Parisi, N. Sourlas, G. Toulouse, and M. Virasoro, Nature of the spin-glass phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1156 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    Franz, G

    S. Franz, G. Parisi, and M.-A. Virasoro, Interfaces and lower critical dimension in a spin glass model, J. Phys. 4, 1657 (1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    Baity-Jesiet al., Critical parameters of the three- dimensional Ising spin glass, Phys

    M. Baity-Jesiet al., Critical parameters of the three- dimensional Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. B88, 224416 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Maiorano and G

    A. Maiorano and G. Parisi, Support for the value 5/2 for the spin-glass lower critical dimension at zero magnetic field, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA115, 5129 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    M. C. Angelini, C. Lucibello, G. Parisi, G. Perrupato, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, and T. Rizzo, Unexpected upper crit- ical dimension for spin glass models in a field predicted by the loop expansion around the bethe solution at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 075702 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Georges, O

    A. Georges, O. Percollet, and S. Sachdev, Mean field the- ory of a quantum Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 840 (2000)

    2000

  12. [12]

    Christos, F

    M. Christos, F. M. Haehl, and S. Sachdev, Spin liquid to spin glass crossover in the random quantum Heisenberg 6 magnet, Phys. Rev. B105, 085120 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Chowdhury, A

    D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Percollet, and S. Sachdev, Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-Fermi liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 035004 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Kavokine, M

    N. Kavokine, M. M¨ uller, A. Georges, and O. Percollet, Exact numerical solution of the fully connected classi- cal and quantum Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 016501 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, G. Bracci-Testasecca, J. Niedda, R. Moessner, G. Carleo, and A. Scardicchio, Quantum spin glass in the two-dimensional disordered Heisenberg model via foundation neural-network quan- tum states (2025), arXiv:2507.05073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Rep

    M. Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 064501 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Replica theory of quantum spin glasses, J. Phys. C13, L655 (1980)

    1980

  18. [18]

    Miller and D

    J. Miller and D. A. Huse, Zero-temperature critical be- havior of the infinite-range quantum Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 3147 (1993)

    1993

  19. [19]

    Rieger and A

    H. Rieger and A. P. Young, Zero-temperature quantum phase transition of a two-dimensional Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 4141 (1994)

    1994

  20. [20]

    Miyazaki and H

    R. Miyazaki and H. Nishimori, Real-space renormalization-group approach to the random transverse-field Ising model in finite dimensions, Phys. Rev. E87, 032154 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    D. A. Matoz-Fernandez and F. Roma, Unconventional critical activated scaling of two-dimensional quantum spin glasses, Phys. Rev. B94, 024201 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Bernaschi, I

    M. Bernaschi, I. Gonza ´lez-Adalid Pemartin, V. Mart ´ ın- Mayor, and G. Parisi, The quantum transition of the two- dimensional Ising spin glass, Nature (London)631, 749 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Georges, O

    A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Quantum fluc- tuations of a nearly critical Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. B63, 134406 (2001)

    2001

  24. [24]

    Biroli and O

    G. Biroli and O. Parcollet, Out-of-equilibrium dynamics of a quantum Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. B65, 094414 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Arrechea and M

    L. Arrechea and M. J. Rozenberg, Infinite-range quantum random Heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. B65, 224430 (2002)

    2002

  26. [26]

    Shackleton, A

    H. Shackleton, A. Wietek, A. Georges, and S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transition at nonzero doping in a random t-Jmodel, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 136602 (2021)

    2021

  27. [28]

    Jolicoeur, E

    T. Jolicoeur, E. Dagotto, E. Gagliano, and S. Bacci, Ground-state properties of theS= 1/2 Heisenberg an- tiferromagnet on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B42, 4800 (1990)

    1990

  28. [29]

    Zhu and S

    Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Spin liquid phase of theS= 1/2 J1-J2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B92, 041105(R) (2015)

    2015

  29. [30]

    Iqbal, W.-J

    Y. Iqbal, W.-J. Hu, R. Thomale, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Spin liquid nature in the HeisenbergJ 1-J2 triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B93, 144411 (2016)

    2016

  30. [31]

    S. Hu, W. Zhu, S. Eggert, and Y.-C. He, Dirac spin liquid on the spin-1/2 triangular Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 207203 (2019)

    2019

  31. [32]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Dynamical structure factor of theJ 1-J2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice: Magnons, spinons, and gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X9, 031026 (2019)

    2019

  32. [33]

    T. Tang, B. Moritz, and T. P. Devereaux, Spectra of a gapped quantum spin liquid with a strong chiral excita- tion on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B106, 064428 (2022)

    2022

  33. [34]

    R. R. P. Singh and N. Elstner, Quantum phase transi- tions in the triangular-lattice bilayer Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4732 (1998)

    1998

  34. [35]

    Kawamura, Monte Carlo study of chiral criticality – XY and Heisenberg stacked-triangular antiferromagnets, J

    H. Kawamura, Monte Carlo study of chiral criticality – XY and Heisenberg stacked-triangular antiferromagnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn61, 1299 (1992)

    1992

  35. [36]

    Gu and J.-L

    Q. Gu and J.-L. Shen, Order-disorder transitions in bi- layer Heisenberg models on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B62, 3287 (2000)

    2000

  36. [37]

    V. N. Kotov, O. P. Sushkov, W. H. Zheng, and J. Oitmaa, Novel approach to description of spin-liquid phases in low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5790 (1998)

    1998

  37. [38]

    D. G. Joshi and M. Vojta, unpublished (2026)

    2026

  38. [39]

    S. Dey, E. C. Andrade, and M. Vojta, Destruction of long-range order in noncollinear two-dimensional antifer- romagnets by random-bond disorder, Phys. Rev. B101, 020411 (2020)

    2020

  39. [40]

    Cherepanov, I

    V. Cherepanov, I. Y. Korenblit, A. Aharony, and O. Entin-Wohlman, Suppression of antiferromagnetic correlations by quenched dipole-type impurities, Eur. Phys. J. B8, 511 (1999)

    1999

  40. [41]

    Hasselmann, A

    N. Hasselmann, A. H. Castro Neto, and C. Morais Smith, Spin-glass phase of cuprates, Phys. Rev. B69, 014424 (2004)

    2004

  41. [42]

    Wollny, L

    A. Wollny, L. Fritz, and M. Vojta, Fractional impurity moments in two-dimensional noncollinear magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 137204 (2011)

    2011

  42. [43]

    V. S. Maryasin and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Triangular an- tiferromagnet with nonmagnetic impurities, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 247201 (2013)

    2013

  43. [44]

    Watanabe, H

    K. Watanabe, H. Kawamura, H. Nakano, and T. Sakai, Quantum spin-liquid behavior in the spin-1/2 random Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.83, 034714 (2014)

    2014

  44. [45]

    Wu, S.-S

    H.-Q. Wu, S.-S. Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Randomness- induced spin-liquid-like phase in the spin-1/2J 1-J2 trian- gular Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B99, 085141 (2019)

    2019

  45. [46]

    Kimchi, A

    I. Kimchi, A. Nahum, and T. Senthil, Valence bonds in random quantum magnets: Theory and application to YbMgGaO4, Phys. Rev. X8, 031028 (2018)

    2018

  46. [47]

    L. Liu, H. Shao, Y.-C. Lin, W. Guo, and A. W. Sand- vik, Random-singlet phase in disordered two-dimensional quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. X8, 041040 (2018)

    2018

  47. [48]

    Li, H.-Q

    K. Li, H.-Q. Wu, and D.-X. Yao, Mott glass and critical- ity in aS= 1/2 bilayer Heisenberg model with interlayer bond dilution (2025), arXiv:2509.03604

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    H¨ ormann and K

    M. H¨ ormann and K. P. Schmidt, Dynamic structure fac- tor of Heisenberg bilayer dimer phases in the presence of quenched disorder and frustration, Phys. Rev. B102, 094427 (2020)

    2020

  49. [50]

    Sachdev and R

    S. Sachdev and R. N. Bhatt, Bond-operator representa- tion of quantum spins: Mean-field theory of frustrated quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B41, 9323 (1990). 7

    1990

  50. [51]

    Sommer, M

    T. Sommer, M. Vojta, and K. W. Becker, Magnetic prop- erties and spin waves of bilayer magnets in a uniform field, Eur. Phys. J. B23, 329 (2001)

    2001

  51. [52]

    D. G. Joshi, K. Coester, K. P. Schmidt, and M. Vo- jta, Nonlinear bond-operator theory and 1/dexpansion for coupled-dimer magnets. I. Paramagnetic phase, Phys. Rev. B91, 094404 (2015)

    2015

  52. [53]

    D. G. Joshi and M. Vojta, Nonlinear bond-operator the- ory and 1/dexpansion for coupled-dimer magnets. II. Antiferromagnetic phase and quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. B91, 094405 (2015)

    2015

  53. [54]

    Vojta, Excitation spectra of disordered dimer magnets near quantum criticality, Phys

    M. Vojta, Excitation spectra of disordered dimer magnets near quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 097202 (2013)

    2013

  54. [55]

    The supplementary material, which also contains Refs.? ? ? ? ?, provides details on the bond-operator tech- nique as well as additional numerical results concerning glassiness, the static and dynamic structure factors, and the mode localization properties

  55. [56]

    R. B. Griffiths, Nonanalytic behavior above the critical point in a random Ising ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 17 (1969)

    1969

  56. [57]

    Vojta, Rare region effects at classical, quantum and nonequilibrium phase transitions, J

    T. Vojta, Rare region effects at classical, quantum and nonequilibrium phase transitions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, R143 (2006)

    2006

  57. [58]

    B. I. Halperin and W. M. Saslow, Hydrodynamic theory of spin waves in spin glasses and other systems with non- collinear spin orientations, Phys. Rev. B16, 2154 (1977)

    1977

  58. [59]

    Podolsky, A

    D. Podolsky, A. Auerbach, and D. P. Arovas, Visibility of the amplitude (Higgs) mode in condensed matter, Phys. Rev. B84, 174522 (2011)

    2011

  59. [60]

    Podolsky and S

    D. Podolsky and S. Sachdev, Spectral functions of the Higgs mode near two-dimensional quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B86, 054508 (2012)

    2012

  60. [61]

    Loh¨ ofer, T

    M. Loh¨ ofer, T. Coletta, D. G. Joshi, F. F. Assaad, M. Vo- jta, S. Wessel, and F. Mila, Dynamical structure factors and excitation modes of the bilayer Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B92, 245137 (2015)

    2015

  61. [62]

    Y. Q. Qin, B. Normand, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Amplitude mode in three-dimensional dimerized antifer- romagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett118, 147207 (2017)

    2017

  62. [63]

    M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, S. Chang, E. C. Samu- lon, C. D. Batista, and I. R. Fisher, Singlet-triplet dis- persion reveals additional frustration in the triangular- lattice dimer compound Ba 3Mn2O8, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 237201 (2008)

    2008

  63. [64]

    E. C. Samulon, Y. Kohama, R. D. McDonald, M. C. Shapiro, K. A. Al-Hassanieh, C. D. Batista, M. Jaime, and I. R. Fisher, Asymmetric quintuplet condensation in the frustrateds= 1 spin dimer compound Ba 3Mn2O8, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 047202 (2009)

    2009

  64. [65]

    A. A. Aczel, Y. Kohama, C. Marcenat, F. Weickert, O. E. Ayala-Valenzuela, M. Jaime, R. D. McDonald, S. D. Selesnic, H. A. Dabkowska, and G. M. Luke, Field- induced Bose-Einstein condensation of triplons up to 8 K in Sr3Cr2O8, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 207203 (2009)

    2009

  65. [66]

    Y. Fu, H. Ge, J. Chen, J. Xiao, Y. Tan, L. Wang, J. Wang, C. Dong, Z. Qu, M. He, C. Xi, L. Ling, B. Xi, and J.-W. Mei, Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless re- gion and magnetization plateaus in easy-axis triangu- lar weak-dimer antiferromagnet K 2Co2(SeO3)3 (2025), arXiv:2501.09619

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Zhang, G

    S. Zhang, G. Silva Freitas, V. S. Zapf, M. Lee, W. Choi, S.-Z. Lin, T. Chen, C. Broholm, X. Xu, R. J. Cava, and S. Choi, Magnetization plateaus in the spin- orbit coupled bilayer triangular lattice antiferromagnet Rb2Co2(SeO3)3 (2026), arXiv:2601.19882

    arXiv 2026

  67. [68]

    K. Y. Povarov, A. Mannig, G. Perren, J. S. M¨ oller, E. Wulf, J. Ollivier, and A. Zheludev, Quantum critical- ity in a three-dimensional spin system at zero field and pressure, Phys. Rev. B96, 140414 (2017)

    2017

  68. [69]

    Mannig, K

    A. Mannig, K. Y. Povarov, J. Ollivier, and A. Zheludev, Spin waves near the edge of halogen substitution induced magnetic order in Ni(Cl1−xBrx)2·4SC(NH2)2, Phys. Rev. B98, 214419 (2018)

    2018

  69. [70]

    Hosseinabadi, S

    H. Hosseinabadi, S. Sachdev, and J. Marino, Crossover to Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev criticality in an infinite-range quan- tum Heisenberg spin glass (2026), arXiv:2603.11263. Supplemental material: Quantum spin-glass criticality in disordered frustrated dimer magnets Darshan G. Joshi 1 and Matthias Vojta 2 1Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad 500046,...

    arXiv 2026

  70. [71]

    Sachdev and R

    S. Sachdev and R. N. Bhatt, Bond-operator representa- tion of quantum spins: Mean-field theory of frustrated quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9323 (1990)

    1990

  71. [72]

    Sommer, M

    T. Sommer, M. Vojta, and K. W. Becker, Magnetic prop- erties and spin waves of bilayer magnets in a uniform field, Eur. Phys. J. B 23, 329 (2001)

    2001

  72. [73]

    Matsumoto, B

    M. Matsumoto, B. Normand, T. M. Rice, and M. Sigrist, Magnon dispersion in the field-induced magnetically or- dered phase of TlCuCl 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 077203 (2002)

    2002

  73. [74]

    Vojta, Excitation spectra of disordered dimer magnets near quantum criticality, Phys

    M. Vojta, Excitation spectra of disordered dimer magnets near quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 097202 (2013). 9

    2013

  74. [75]

    Puschmann, J

    M. Puschmann, J. Crewse, J. A. Hoyos, and T. Vojta, Collective modes at a disordered quantum phase transi- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 027002 (2020)

    2020

  75. [76]

    Wessel and I

    S. Wessel and I. Milat, Phys. Rev. B 71, 104427 (2005)

    2005

  76. [77]

    V. N. Kotov, O. P. Sushkov, W. H. Zheng, and J. Oitmaa, Novel approach to description of spin-liquid phases in low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5790 (1998)

    1998

  77. [78]

    D. G. Joshi, K. Coester, K. P. Schmidt, and M. Vo- jta, Nonlinear bond-operator theory and 1 /d expansion for coupled-dimer magnets. I. Paramagnetic phase, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094404 (2015)

    2015

  78. [79]

    D. G. Joshi and M. Vojta, Nonlinear bond-operator the- ory and 1 /d expansion for coupled-dimer magnets. II. Antiferromagnetic phase and quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094405 (2015)

    2015

  79. [80]

    A. V. Syromyatnikov, Collective excitations in spin-1/2 magnets through bond-operator formalism designed both for paramagnetic and ordered phases, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184421 (2018)

    2018

  80. [81]

    Zhang, Y

    S.-S. Zhang, Y. Kato, E. A. Ghioldi, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, and C. D. Batista, Large-N SU(4) Schwinger boson theory for coupled-dimer antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 112, 024410 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.