Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A hallmark of symmetry-protected topological phases are topological boundary states, which are immune to perturbations that respect the protecting symmetry. It is commonly believed that any perturbation that destroys such a topological phase simultaneously destroys the boundary states. However, by introducing and exploring a weaker sub-symmetry requirement on perturbations, we find that the nature of boundary state protection is in fact more complex. Here we demonstrate that the boundary states are protected by only the sub-symmetry, using Su–Schrieffer–Heeger and breathing kagome lattice models, even though the overall topological invariant and the associated topological phase can be destroyed by sub-symmetry-preserving perturbations. By precisely controlling symmetry breaking in photonic lattices, we experimentally demonstrate such sub-symmetry protection of topological states. Furthermore, we introduce a long-range hopping symmetry in breathing kagome lattices, which resolves a debate on the higher-order topological nature of their corner states. Our results apply beyond photonics and could be used to explore the properties of symmetry-protected topological phases in the absence of full symmetry in different physical contexts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it