Transition between ground states in square anisotropic artificial colloidal ice

Antonio Ortiz-Ambriz; Leonardo G. Alanis-Cant\'u

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Transition between ground states in square anisotropic artificial colloidal ice

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Fast rotation of the driving field reaches a defect-free anti-ice ground state in colloidal ice; slow rotation traps a partially ordered metastable state.

desk verdict Solid ACI simulation with a real counterintuitive rate effect; the fast pathway is clean, the “ergodicity breaking” language is ahead of the protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25050 v1 pith:5OCULI7V submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.soft

Leonardo G. Alanis-Cantú , Antonio Ortiz-Ambriz This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords artificialcolloidalicegeometricfrustrationmagneticdipoleinteractionsrulesanti-iceruleergodicitybreakingdiffusionlesstransformationparamagneticcolloids

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Artificial colloidal ice places paramagnetic particles in double-well traps so each particle acts like an Ising spin, with magnetic dipole forces set by an external field. This paper shows what happens when that field is continuously rotated from out-of-plane to in-plane, turning isotropic repulsion into anisotropic mixed forces and driving the system from the usual charge-free 2-in/2-out ice rule toward a charged 4-in/4-out anti-ice state. The final arrangement depends sharply on rotation rate: above roughly 0.2 rad/s the particles execute a synchronized, diffusionless flip of exactly half the traps and land in a clean ground state; at slow rates the same drive leaves the system stuck with many residual defects. The result matters because it reverses the usual quench intuition—faster driving produces fewer defects—and shows that continuous anisotropy ramps can open or close collective pathways that static endpoints alone do not determine.

What carries the argument

The continuous field-rotation protocol B(t) = B[sin(ωt)x̂ + cos(ωt)ẑ] that sweeps the dipolar magic angle and thereby the attractive/repulsive landscape; the order parameter κ and the half-particle flip fraction νp that diagnose whether the system follows the optimal synchronized pathway.

What would settle it

After the same slow rotation to in-plane field, hold B fixed and continue the dynamics (or use enhanced sampling) for times much longer than the rotation duration; if the partially ordered configurations anneal into a clean 4-in/4-out crystal, the ergodicity-breaking claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under continuous rotation of the external field from the z-axis into the plane, square artificial colloidal ice reaches the 4-in/4-out anti-ice-rule ground state only for sufficiently fast angular rates, via a coordinated diffusionless transformation that flips all horizontal (or all vertical) traps and none of the others. Slow rotation instead breaks ergodicity on accessible timescales and freezes the system in a partially ordered metastable mixture dominated by charge-±2 vertices, even though the equilibrium target is the fully charged anti-ice crystal.

Load-bearing premise

That finite-time overdamped trajectories ending when the field finishes rotating are enough to call the slow-rate trapped states true ergodicity breaking rather than unfinished relaxation under a still-changing landscape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Final ACI configurations under rotating-field drive are protocol-dependent, not fixed by the endpoint field alone.
Fast rotation offers a practical route to prepare defect-free anti-ice-rule crystals without large-scale diffusion.
Slow continuous ramps of interaction anisotropy can induce kinetic arrest even when the target state is the ground state.
The optimal ice-to-anti-ice path is a collective flip of one entire trap orientation (all horizontal or all vertical).
Three regimes appear in (ω, B) space: anti-ice ground state, quiescent retention of the initial ice rule, and a low-frequency partially ordered pocket that widens with field strength.

Reading between the lines

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

The same counterintuitive fast-better-than-slow ordering may appear in other frustrated lattices whenever a continuous drive sweeps an interaction through a magic-angle threshold.
Optical-microscopy experiments on existing microfabricated colloidal-ice chips could test the reported ~0.2 rad/s threshold and the synchronized half-flip pathway directly.
The partially ordered pocket may be better classified as protocol-dependent kinetic arrest or glass-like dynamics than as ordinary finite-barrier metastability.
Holding the field fixed after slow rotation, or adding weak quenched disorder in hill heights, would map how robust the arrested states are against ordinary thermal annealing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new piece here is the continuous z-to-x field rotation and the rate dependence it produces: fast drive gives a synchronized, half-system flip into defect-free 4-in/4-out order; slow drive leaves partial order. That is opposite the usual quench intuition and is not in the static anisotropic paper or the time-averaged rotating-field work they cite.

What they do well is the trajectory-level story for the fast branch. Parameters match prior experiment, the dipole and trap model are standard, and Figs. 3–5 line up: ν_p saturates at 1/2, only the horizontal (or only the vertical) traps flip, and the motion is brief and coordinated. That geometric pathway is clear and the MD evidence for it is coherent. The B–ω map in Fig. 6 is also useful as a practical guide for anyone running these drives.

The soft spot is concentrated in the slow branch and the abstract’s wording. They stop the protocol at θ=π/2 and never evolve at fixed in-plane field. Their own text admits the partial state is “at least within accessible simulation times” and that post-rotation evolution is omitted. So κ≈0.36 at the end of a long ramp is consistent with slow relaxation, kinetic arrest, or true broken ergodicity; the data do not separate those. Fig. 2 already suggests a milder mechanism—sub-threshold type-III flips that seed defects—so the strong ergodicity claim is not required for the interesting result. Secondary and smaller: no ensemble sizes or error bars on the ω crossover or the phase boundaries.

This is for people who already work on colloidal ice, ASI analogs, or protocol-dependent ordering in frustrated particle systems. The dynamical observation is worth having on the record once the language is tightened. I would send it to referees; I would not desk-reject it. Soften the ergodicity claim, add a few constant-field hold runs and basic statistics, and the core finding stands. Worth engaging if you care about how these lattices are driven experimentally.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The authors simulate a square artificial colloidal ice (ACI) of paramagnetic colloids in double-well traps under a magnetic field rotated continuously from out-of-plane (z) to in-plane (x), using overdamped molecular dynamics with parameters matched to prior experiments. In equilibrium this rotation carries the system from the 2-in/2-out ice-rule state to the 4-in/4-out anti-ice-rule charge crystal. The central finding is a strong dependence of the final state on the rotation rate ω: for ω ≳ 0.2 rad/s the system reaches the defect-free anti-ice-rule ground state via a synchronized, diffusionless transformation in which exactly half the particles (all horizontal traps) flip, with the flipped fraction ν_p saturating at 1/2 and the charge order parameter κ → 1; at slow rates (down to ω ≈ 1.6×10⁻³ rad/s) the system instead ends in a partially ordered state (κ ≈ 0.36) dominated by q = ±2 vertices, which the authors describe as a breakdown of ergodicity. A (ω, B) phase diagram with ground-state, quiescent, and partially ordered regions is presented (Fig. 6).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper reports a genuinely counterintuitive dynamical phenomenon — slower driving producing worse ordering, inverting the usual quench/coarsening intuition — in an experimentally accessible colloidal system. The fast-rotation half of the result is well supported: the geometric pathway (flip all horizontal or all vertical traps) is derived cleanly, and the trajectory-level evidence (ν_p saturating at exactly 1/2, Fig. 4; sharp fluctuation-free Δν_p peaks, Fig. 5; κ → 1, Fig. 3b) is coherent and internally consistent. The model is stated with full numerical parameters (Eqs. 1–4) matching a realized experiment, so the work amounts to a falsifiable prediction for the ACI platform of Ref. 19. The magic-angle analysis (Eq. 5, θ_th = 35.26°) and the observation of sub-threshold type-III vertex dynamics driven by anisotropic repulsion plus thermal noise are nice mechanistic contributions. The result is a dynamical outcome of a stated Hamiltonian and protocol, not a fitted or normalized quantity, which strengthens its credibility.

major comments (3)

[Abstract; §V (final paragraph); §VI] The claim that 'ergodicity breaks down' at slow rotation rates is not established by the evidence presented. The protocol (Eq. 4) stops at ωt = π/2 and the state is read from the last frame; §V explicitly states that 'the subsequent evolution at constant field is not included in the protocol' and that the partially ordered region exists 'at least within the accessible simulation times.' A partially ordered configuration with κ ≈ 0.36 at the end of a ~654 s ramp is equally consistent with (a) ordinary slow relaxation toward the 4-in/4-out GS, (b) kinetic arrest with a finite but long relaxation time, or (c) genuine ergodicity breaking, and nothing in Figs. 2–6 distinguishes these. This is load-bearing because the ergodicity claim is the headline of the abstract. A concrete, feasible fix: run the slowest-ω case (e.g. ω = 1.6×10⁻³ rad/s, B = 20 mT) with a constant-field hold at θ = π/2 afte
[§III, Fig. 3a/b; §V, Fig. 6] No ensemble statistics are reported anywhere in the paper. Fig. 3a/b and the regime boundaries in Fig. 6 appear to be based on single trajectories per (ω, B) point on a modest 10×10 lattice (~100 vertices). Given that the partially ordered regime is characterized by 'frozen defects' and history dependence, run-to-run variability is precisely the quantity that determines whether the ω ≈ 0.2 rad/s boundary in Fig. 3b and the region boundaries in Fig. 6 are sharp features or single-realization accidents. The authors should state the number of independent noise realizations per point and add error bars (or at least report the spread in κ and in the final vertex fractions). This is particularly important because the paper's central dichotomy (fast → GS, slow → partial order) is drawn from the same data.
[§IV, Fig. 4; Fig. 5 inset] The definition of ν_p needs tightening to support the 'exactly half the particles flip' claim. The text says a particle counts as crossed if it crosses the hill center opposite its initial position, and that rapid fluctuations around the center 'do not keep adding to the fraction' — but it is not stated whether ν_p is cumulative over distinct particles (each particle counted at most once) or a net count. Since the slow regime shows particles oscillating around the hill, the saturation of ν_p 'well above 1/2' in that regime depends sensitively on this convention. Please define the estimator precisely. Relatedly, the Δθ extraction in the Fig. 5 inset (moving-average envelope of |Δν_p| above 'a small fixed fraction of its maximum') should specify the smoothing window and threshold fraction, since ∆θ is used quantitatively to compare fast and slow regimes.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and throughout] Typo: 'difussionless' (abstract, §I, §IV, §VI) should be 'diffusionless.' Units are written inconsistently as 'Rad s−1' (Figs. 2–5, §III) and 'rad/s'; please standardize.
[§III, Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3 states '(c) fast rotation, (d) slow rotation,' but the main text in §III describes the slow-rotation configuration as Fig. 3c and the fast-rotation ground state as Fig. 3d. One of the two is mislabeled; please reconcile.
[§IV, second paragraph] The text refers to 'Fig. 3 b) and c)' when discussing the separate motion of horizontal and vertical particles; this should be Fig. 4b and 4c.
[§III, Eq. (6)] κ is defined with signed q_ij and the alternating factor (−1)^{i+j}, so for the antiferromagnetic 4-in/4-out state κ = +1 by construction; the text's reference to '|κ|' being maximized is then redundant/confusing. Please clarify whether the complementary (all-vertical-flip) GS gives κ = +1 or −1, since both are said to be reached.
[§II, Eq. (1)] The symbol ξ is used for the diffusion constant and γ = k_BT/ξ for the drag; this is the Einstein relation but the notation is nonstandard (ξ usually denotes a friction). A brief note would help. Also state whether periodic or open boundary conditions are used on the 10×10 lattice, as this affects vertex counting near edges.
[General] No code or data availability statement is given. Given that the results are pure simulation, depositing the MD code and the trajectory data underlying Figs. 2–6 would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: rate-dependent final states are observed MD outcomes under a stated drive and Hamiltonian, not quantities forced by definition, fit, or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claims—that fast field rotation yields a defect-free 4-in/4-out state via synchronized half-system flips (ν_p → 1/2) while slow rotation leaves a partially ordered state with lower κ—are readouts of overdamped molecular-dynamics trajectories under Eqs. (1)–(4), not predictions constructed from fitted targets. The charge order parameter κ (Eq. 6) and vertex fractions P(v) are diagnostics computed after the fact; they are not inputs that force the reported ω dependence. Background self-citations (Refs. 34–35) supply the trap potential and the known anisotropic ground-state energetics, which is ordinary reuse of prior methodology and does not make the continuous-rotation pathway or the counterintuitive slow-is-worse outcome true by construction. There is no uniqueness theorem, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no self-definitional loop between premise and result. Any weakness in the strong “ergodicity breaks down” language is a finite-horizon / protocol limitation (simulations stop at θ=π/2), not circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard overdamped colloidal MD plus a pairwise dipolar interaction under a prescribed rotating field, with trap and material parameters taken from prior experimental ACI realizations rather than fitted to produce the rate effect. No new physical entities are postulated. Load-bearing modeling choices are pairwise dipoles (no many-body), identical disorder-free hills, rotation stopped at π/2 without further equilibration, and interpretation of finite-time partial order as ergodicity breaking.

free parameters (3)

Trap stiffnesses k_trap, k_hill and hill height h = k_trap=0.1 pN/nm, h=4 pN·nm
Chosen to match prior ACI models (k_trap=0.1 pN/nm, h=4 pN·nm, k_hill=8h/d²); not fitted to the ω-dependence but they set barrier height ~k_B T and thus control flip rates that underlie the claimed arrest.
Diffusion constant ξ (drag) = 0.125 µm²/s
ξ=0.125 µm²/s sets the physical time unit against which ω is compared; taken as a room-temperature colloidal value, not fitted to order-parameter data, but it directly places the numerical threshold ω≳0.2 rad/s.
Field magnitudes B and angular rates ω scanned = crossover ω≳0.2 rad/s at B=20 mT
Discrete scan of B (notably 10 and 20 mT) and ω used to draw the three-regime map in Fig. 6; the reported crossover ~0.2 rad/s is an observed threshold in that scan, not a fitted theory parameter, but regime boundaries depend on the chosen grid and run length.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Overdamped Langevin dynamics with pairwise magnetic dipole–dipole interactions and no many-body magnetization corrections adequately describe the colloidal ice.
Stated in Sec. II: equations (1)–(3), 'neglect many-body effects'; standard in ACI literature but controls force balance during collective flips.
domain assumption All traps are identical bistable potentials with the same hill height and no quenched disorder.
Sec. II: 'In our simulations all hills have the same height, with no disorder.' Removes pinning heterogeneity that could alter metastability.
domain assumption The equilibrium ground state under in-plane field is the 4-in/4-out anti-ice-rule charge crystal.
Taken from prior work (Ref. 34) and used to interpret κ→max as success; Sec. II and introduction.
ad hoc to paper Stopping the protocol at ωt=π/2 and reading the last frame is a valid probe of the driven transition (no mandatory post-rotation anneal).
Sec. II protocol and Sec. V discussion of the quiescent region; this choice directly shapes the reported B–ω map.
standard math Standard stochastic calculus / fluctuation–dissipation for η_i at T=300 K.
Sec. II correlation ⟨η_i(t)·η_j(t')⟩=4 k_B T γ δ_ij δ(t−t').

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transition between ground states in square anisotropic artificial colloidal ice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OCULI7V

@misc{pith2026260725050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transition between ground states in square anisotropic artificial colloidal ice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OCULI7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25050}
}

abstract

In Artificial Colloidal Ice (ACI), paramagnetic colloidal particles are confined in double-well traps and interact via repulsive, isotropic, magnetic dipole-dipole interactions that can be controlled by an external magnetic field. In this paper, we dynamically introduce anisotropic interactions to ACI by rotating the external magnetic field, which, in equilibrium, makes the system go from a charge-free 2-in, 2-out ice rule state, to a charged 4-in, 4-out state. We observe a strong dependence of the final configuration on the field's rotation rate $\omega$: at high angular velocity, the system achieves a defect free final state via a difussionless transformation from the initial ground state. However, counterintuitively, at slow rotation rates, ergodicity breaks down, trapping the system in a partially ordered metastable state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25050 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Frequency dependence of the final configurations. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Number of particles ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Ortiz-Ambriz, C

A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, C. J. O. Re- ichhardt, and P. Tierno,Colloquium: Ice rule and emer- gent frustration in particle ice and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 041003 (2019)

2019
[2]

Nisoli, R

C. Nisoli, R. Moessner, and P. Schiffer,Colloquium: Ar- tificial spin ice: Designing and imaging magnetic frustra- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1473 (2013)

2013
[3]

R. F. Wang, C. Nisoli, R. S. Freitas, J. Li, W. McConville, B. J. Cooley, M. S. Lund, N. Samarth, C. Leighton, V. H. Crespi, and P. Schiffer, Artificial ‘spin ice’ in a geometri- cally frustrated lattice of nanoscale ferromagnetic islands, Nature439, 303 (2006)

2006
[4]

S. H. Skjærvø, C. H. Marrows, R. L. Stamps, and L. J. Heyderman, Advances in artificial spin ice, Nat Rev Phys 2, 13 (2019)

2019
[5]

A. May, M. Saccone, A. Van Den Berg, J. Askey, M. Hunt, and S. Ladak, Magnetic charge propagation upon a 3D artificial spin-ice, Nat Commun12, 3217 (2021)

2021
[6]

Drisko, T

J. Drisko, T. Marsh, and J. Cumings, Topological frustra- tion of artificial spin ice, Nat Commun8, 14009 (2017)

2017
[7]

Wang, Z.-L

Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, A. Snezhko, J. Xu, L. E. Ocola, R. Divan, J. E. Pearson, G. W. Crabtree, and W.-K. Kwok, Rewritable artificial magnetic charge ice, Science 352, 962 (2016)

2016
[8]

Gilbert, G.-W

I. Gilbert, G.-W. Chern, B. Fore, Y. Lao, S. Zhang, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Direct visualization of mem- ory effects in artificial spin ice, Phys. Rev. B92, 104417 (2015)

2015

Show all 36 references

[9]

Gilbert, G.-W

I. Gilbert, G.-W. Chern, S. Zhang, L. O’Brien, B. Fore, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Emergent ice rule and magnetic charge screening from vertex frustration in artificial spin ice, Nature Phys10, 670 (2014)

2014
[10]

Zhang, I

S. Zhang, I. Gilbert, C. Nisoli, G.-W. Chern, M. J. Er- ickson, L. O’Brien, C. Leighton, P. E. Lammert, V. H. Crespi, and P. Schiffer, Crystallites of magnetic charges in artificial spin ice, Nature500, 553 (2013)

2013
[11]

Saccone, F

M. Saccone, F. Caravelli, K. Hofhuis, S. Dhuey, A. Scholl, C. Nisoli, and A. Farhan, Real-space observation of er- godicity transitions in artificial spin ice, Nat Commun 14, 5674 (2023)

2023
[12]

Arava, N

H. Arava, N. Leo, D. Schildknecht, J. Cui, J. Vijayaku- mar, P. M. Derlet, A. Kleibert, and L. J. Heyderman, Engineering Relaxation Pathways in Building Blocks of Artificial Spin Ice for Computation, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 054086 (2019)

2019
[13]

Y. Lao, F. Caravelli, M. Sheikh, J. Sklenar, D. Gardeaza- bal, J. D. Watts, A. M. Albrecht, A. Scholl, K. Dahmen, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Classical topological order in the kinetics of artificial spin ice, Nature Phys14, 723 (2018)

2018
[14]

S. A. Morley, D. Alba Venero, J. M. Porro, S. T. Ri- ley, A. Stein, P. Steadman, R. L. Stamps, S. Langridge, and C. H. Marrows, Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann freezing of a thermally fluctuating artificial spin ice probed by x- ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B95, 104422 (2017)

2017
[15]

Kapaklis, U

V. Kapaklis, U. B. Arnalds, A. Farhan, R. V. Chopdekar, A. Balan, A. Scholl, L. J. Heyderman, and B. Hj¨ orvarsson, Thermal fluctuations in artificial spin ice, Nature Nanotech9, 514 (2014)

2014
[16]

Rougemaille, F

N. Rougemaille, F. Montaigne, B. Canals, A. Dulu- ard, D. Lacour, M. Hehn, R. Belkhou, O. Fruchart, S. El Moussaoui, A. Bendounan, and F. Maccherozzi, Ar- tificial Kagome Arrays of Nanomagnets: A Frozen Dipo- lar Spin Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 057209 (2011)

2011
[17]

Nisoli, Unexpected Phenomenology in Particle-Based Ice Absent in Magnetic Spin Ice, Phys

C. Nisoli, Unexpected Phenomenology in Particle-Based Ice Absent in Magnetic Spin Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 167205 (2018)

2018
[18]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Real- izing Colloidal Artificial Ice on Arrays of Optical Traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 228302 (2006)

2006
[19]

Ortiz-Ambriz and P

A. Ortiz-Ambriz and P. Tierno, Engineering of frustra- tion in colloidal artificial ices realized on microfeatured grooved lattices, Nat. Commun.7, 10575 (2016)

2016
[20]

Nisoli, Dumping topological charges on neighbors: Ice manifolds for colloids and vortices, New J

C. Nisoli, Dumping topological charges on neighbors: Ice manifolds for colloids and vortices, New J. Phys.16, 113049 (2014)

2014
[21]

Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A

C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, and P. Tierno, De- generacy and hysteresis in a bidisperse colloidal ice, Phys. Rev. Research3, 043023 (2021)

2021
[22]

Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A

C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Nisoli, and P. Tierno, Ice rule breakdown and frustrated antiferro- toroidicity in an artificial colloidal Cairo ice, New J. Phys. 25, 103007 (2023)

2023
[23]

Lib´ al, D

A. Lib´ al, D. Y. Lee, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Reichhardt, C. J. O. Reichhardt, P. Tierno, and C. Nisoli, Ice rule fragility via topological charge transfer in artificial col- loidal ice, Nat Commun9, 4146 (2018)

2018
[24]

Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A

C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Nisoli, and P. Tierno, Geometrical control of topological charge transfer in Shakti-Cairo colloidal ice, Commun Phys6, 113 (2023)

2023
[25]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Nisoli, C. J. O. Reichhardt, and C. Re- ichhardt, Inner Phases of Colloidal Hexagonal Spin Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 027204 (2018)

2018
[26]

Le Cunuder, I

A. Le Cunuder, I. Fr´ erot, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, and P. Tierno, Competing orders in colloidal kagome ice: Importance of the in-trap motion of the particles, Phys. Rev. B99, 140405 (2019)

2019
[27]

Libal, A

A. Libal, A. del Campo, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Quenched Dynamics of Artificial Spin Ice: Coarsening versus Kibble-Zurek, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033433 (2020), arXiv:1908.05328

2020 arXiv
[28]

E. C. O˘ guz, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, H. Shem-Tov, E. Babi` a- Soler, P. Tierno, and Y. Shokef, Topology Restricts Quasidegeneracy in Sheared Square Colloidal Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 238003 (2020)

2020
[29]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. J. O. Reichhardt, and C. Reichhardt, Doped colloidal artificial spin ice, New J. Phys.17, 103010 (2015)

2015
[30]

Ostinato and P

M. Ostinato and P. Tierno, Tracking topological defects in a plasma state of a quenched colloidal ice, Phys. Rev. B111, 014414 (2025). 8

2025
[31]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. Olson Reichhardt, Hysteresis and return-point memory in colloidal artificial spin ice systems, Phys. Rev. E86, 021406 (2012)

2012
[32]

Lib´ al, C

A. Lib´ al, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. O. Reich- hardt, Dynamic Control of Topological Defects in Artifi- cial Colloidal Ice, Sci Rep7, 651 (2017)

2017
[33]

Baillou, M

R. Baillou, M. Terkel, C. Nisoli, and P. Tierno, Emergent charge crystallization and frustration in a particle anti- spin Ice (2026), arXiv:2603.29389 [cond-mat]

2026
[34]

L. G. Alanis-Cant´ u and A. Ortiz-Ambriz, Anisotropic in- teractions induce dynamical spin freezing in artificial col- loidal ice, Physical Review Research8, 033051 (2026)

2026
[35]

Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A

C. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gallo, A. Ortiz-Ambriz, and P. Tierno, Topological Boundary Constraints in Artificial Colloidal Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 188001 (2021)

2021
[36]

No´ e, S

F. No´ e, S. Olsson, J. K¨ ohler, and H. Wu, Boltzmann gen- erators: Sampling equilibrium states of many-body sys- tems with deep learning, Science365, eaaw1147 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ortiz-Ambriz, C

A. Ortiz-Ambriz, C. Nisoli, C. Reichhardt, C. J. O. Re- ichhardt, and P. Tierno,Colloquium: Ice rule and emer- gent frustration in particle ice and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 041003 (2019)

2019

[2] [2]

Nisoli, R

C. Nisoli, R. Moessner, and P. Schiffer,Colloquium: Ar- tificial spin ice: Designing and imaging magnetic frustra- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1473 (2013)

2013

[3] [3]

R. F. Wang, C. Nisoli, R. S. Freitas, J. Li, W. McConville, B. J. Cooley, M. S. Lund, N. Samarth, C. Leighton, V. H. Crespi, and P. Schiffer, Artificial ‘spin ice’ in a geometri- cally frustrated lattice of nanoscale ferromagnetic islands, Nature439, 303 (2006)

2006

[4] [4]

S. H. Skjærvø, C. H. Marrows, R. L. Stamps, and L. J. Heyderman, Advances in artificial spin ice, Nat Rev Phys 2, 13 (2019)

2019

[5] [5]

A. May, M. Saccone, A. Van Den Berg, J. Askey, M. Hunt, and S. Ladak, Magnetic charge propagation upon a 3D artificial spin-ice, Nat Commun12, 3217 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

Drisko, T

J. Drisko, T. Marsh, and J. Cumings, Topological frustra- tion of artificial spin ice, Nat Commun8, 14009 (2017)

2017

[7] [7]

Wang, Z.-L

Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, A. Snezhko, J. Xu, L. E. Ocola, R. Divan, J. E. Pearson, G. W. Crabtree, and W.-K. Kwok, Rewritable artificial magnetic charge ice, Science 352, 962 (2016)

2016

[8] [8]

Gilbert, G.-W

I. Gilbert, G.-W. Chern, B. Fore, Y. Lao, S. Zhang, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Direct visualization of mem- ory effects in artificial spin ice, Phys. Rev. B92, 104417 (2015)

2015