MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997956189 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13861-4

Symmetry-protected hierarchy of anomalous multipole topological band gaps in nonsymmorphic metacrystals

2020· article· en· W2997956189 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTopology (electrical circuits)Topological orderSymmetry protected topological orderTopological quantum numberTopological degeneracyTopological entropy in physicsQuantum phasesSymmetry (geometry)Hierarchy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Symmetry and topology are two fundamental aspects of many quantum states of matter. Recently new topological materials, higher-order topological insulators, were discovered, featuring bulk–edge–corner correspondence that goes beyond the conventional topological paradigms. Here we discover experimentally that the nonsymmorphic p 4 g acoustic metacrystals host a symmetry-protected hierarchy of topological multipoles: the lowest band gap has a quantized Wannier dipole and can mimic the quantum spin Hall effect, whereas the second band gap exhibits quadrupole topology with anomalous Wannier bands. Such a topological hierarchy allows us to observe experimentally distinct, multiplexed topological phenomena and to reveal a topological transition triggered by the geometry transition from the p 4 g group to the C 4 v group, which demonstrates elegantly the fundamental interplay between symmetry and topology. Our study demonstrates that classical systems with controllable geometry can serve as powerful simulators for the discovery of novel topological states of matter and their phase transitions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207