Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Breaking Mechanical Holography in Combinatorial Metamaterials

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that for combinatorial mechanical metamaterials on square, honeycomb, and cubic lattices, central symmetry of a block's hinge–strut pattern is exactly what forces boundary-determined holographic bulk order, while…

desk verdict Clean symmetry criterion and exact counts for all single-soft-mode blocks in three lattices; the physical claims rest on a stated idealization and one verbal step in the 3D protocol that needs tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15760 v3 pith:RPNZVEJ3 submitted 2024-11-24 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Chaviva Sirote-Katz , Ofri Palti , Naomi Spiro , Tamás Kálmán , Yair Shokef This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords combinatorialmetamaterialsmechanicalholographyfloppymodescompatibilitydeformationtexturedesignsquarelatticehoneycombcubic
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

Combinatorial mechanical metamaterials are lattices of identical anisotropic blocks, each with a single soft deformation mode, whose mutual orientations decide whether all blocks can deform together or frustrate each other. The paper classifies every possible block type for the square, honeycomb, and cubic lattices and proposes that one geometric property separates all cases: whether the block's hinge-and-strut pattern is centrally symmetric. Centrally symmetric blocks induce holographic order, meaning the deformation texture on the boundary completely determines the deformation in the bulk, so only boundary-sized design freedom remains. Blocks without that symmetry are non-holographic: the deformation texture can be prescribed on the entire boundary except for a single parity-fixed pixel, and the number of compatible metamaterials grows exponentially with the number of blocks rather than with the boundary. If this rule holds, designers can tell from a block's symmetry alone whether a metamaterial family offers full boundary-pattern control or only boundary-determined bulk behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binary soft mode of a block: each facet moves either into or out of the block, with equal magnitude and normal to the facet, and the pattern is encoded by struts and hinges coupling adjacent facets. Compatibility is decided by traversing minimal loops around lattice vertices in two dimensions or lattice edges in three dimensions: a strut preserves the deformation sense, a hinge flips it, so a loop is compatible exactly when it contains an even number of hinges. This turns the mechanical problem into a mod-2 counting problem, and the block's hinge–strut symmetry determines whether boundary data continue uniquely into the interior. Super-block tilings, in which two internally different clusters share the same exterior texture, provide the extensive lower bounds for non-holographic blocks, and a sequential scanning algorithm subject to the parity constraint produces the full-boundary texture designs and exact multiplicities.

What would settle it

Build an $L_x\times L_y$ lattice of Block $S_4$ with a boundary texture whose in/out counts violate the derived parity constraint and actuate the expected soft mode: the claim predicts exactly one boundary pixel fails to follow the prescription, with all blocks still deforming in a single compatible mode. If more than one pixel fails, or if the lattice has no extended soft mode at all, the single-binary-mode assumption and the parity counting would be refuted. A second check is exhaustive enumeration of compatible orientations on growing systems: the ratio of $\log\Omega$ to the number of blocks must approach a positive constant for non-holographic blocks and zero for holographic ones.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that holographic order in these metamaterials is exactly central symmetry of the block's deformation pattern: the strut-and-hinge couplings around the block are invariant under a half-turn precisely for the blocks that make boundary data propagate through the bulk. For such blocks, the deformation texture on part of the boundary fixes the orientation of every interior block, and the multiplicity of compatible metamaterials therefore scales exponentially with the boundary rather than with the number of blocks: sub-extensively in the paper's terminology. For every non-holographic block type identified ($S_4$ in the square lattice; $C_4$, $C_5$, $C_6$ in the cubic lattice; $H_4$, $H_{5a}$, $H_{5b}$, $H_6$ in the honeycomb lattice), the paper constructs super-blocks with identical exterior texture but two distinct internal arrangements, which convert a regular tiling into an extensive lower bound on the number of compatible metamaterials and match the trivial upper bound. It then gives explicit orientation protocols that realize any desired texture on the whole boundary, up to one pixel whose polarity is fixed by an in/out parity constraint, and uses the protocol to derive the exact multiplicity for Block $S_4$ as $2^{L_xL_y+L_x+L_y-1}$ on an $L_x\times L_y$ lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes each block deforms through exactly one binary soft mode in which every facet moves in or out by the same amount and perpendicular to the facet, and that the fabricated prototypes realize only this mode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For holographic blocks $S_3$ and $C_3$, any deformation texture on two adjacent sides of a square metamaterial or three adjacent faces of a cubic one is realizable, and the texture on the opposite sides is then forced; the resulting multiplicities are $2^{2L-1}$ and $2^{3L^2-1}$, respectively.
  • For the non-holographic square block $S_4$, the exact number of compatible metamaterials is $2^{L_xL_y+L_x+L_y-1}$, meaning the exponent grows with the area, not the perimeter.
  • For each non-holographic cubic and honeycomb block, the multiplicity lies between an extensive lower bound from super-block tiling and the trivial orientation-count upper bound, so it grows exponentially with the number of blocks.
  • With Block $C_5$, any prescribed texture on all six faces of a cubic metamaterial can be realized, except for a single pixel whose in/out polarity is fixed by the parity of $L_x$, $L_y$, and $L_z$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This inference goes beyond the paper: if the central-symmetry criterion is generic, then any future block type on any lattice with a centrally symmetric facet-coupling pattern should show sub-extensive multiplicity, and any block without it should show extensive multiplicity; testing one additional lattice would either extend or carve out the classification.
  • The parity-fixed pixel looks like a topological obstruction rather than a practical nuisance, so combining non-holographic blocks with mechanical defects, as in the companion frustration study, may turn that single fixed pixel into a movable degree of freedom or a defect attractor.
  • The hinge-parity loop rule is essentially a mod-2 constraint-satisfaction problem, so the holographic/non-holographic split may also describe a computational division: centrally symmetric blocks propagate boundary data deterministically, while non-holographic blocks have a solution space exponential in area, analogous to spin-ice degeneracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper classifies all combinatorial mechanical building blocks for the square, honeycomb, and cubic lattices under the assumption that each block has one binary soft mode with equal, normal facet displacements. It distinguishes holographic blocks (those whose hinge/strut pattern is centrally symmetric) from non-holographic blocks, and argues that, within this model, compatible metamaterials built from holographic blocks have multiplicity scaling sub-extensively with system size, while the non-holographic families treated here have extensive multiplicity. For non-holographic Block S4 the paper gives an exact multiplicity formula and a constructive proof that any boundary texture satisfying a global parity constraint can be realized; for cubic Block C5 it proposes a six-face texture-design protocol; and it reports physical prototypes of all block types.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a clean and testable dichotomy: for the enumerated block types, holographic order is equivalent to boundary-controlled counting and texture design, while non-holographic blocks permit bulk-scale design freedom. The S4 parity derivation, the exact S4 multiplicity formula, and the explicit superblock tilings for the non-holographic families are concrete, parameter-free contributions. The availability of the computer code for the hexagonal tiling search and for the C5 texture-design protocol, as well as the physical prototypes, are additional strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C] The final paragraph of Appendix C states that reducing the last layer of the C5 protocol to the S4 texture-design problem proves realizability "up to one pixel, which is the same as the pixel that cannot be specified because of our parity argument for Block C5." This coincidence is asserted without derivation, yet it is load-bearing for the claim that, with Block C5, any texture on all six faces can be realized except for a single parity-fixed pixel. Please provide a proof, or at least an explicit statement of the mapping between the S4 parity constraint on the purple region and the global parity constraint of Appendix B, including the location of the exceptional pixel.
  2. [Secs. II, III, VII] The counting and texture-design results are proved for the idealized model in which every block has a single binary soft mode with equal, normal facet displacements, and Sec. VII explicitly defers unequal-amplitude and non-normal facet motions to future work. However, the physical prototypes in Sec. III and the experimental demonstration in Fig. 10 are presented as realizations of exactly this mode without a kinematic analysis or deformation measurement. If the fabricated blocks possess additional modes or unequal facet amplitudes, the compatibility rules of Sec. IV need not describe the physical mechanism, so the transfer of the results to the physical systems is not yet established. Please either provide such evidence or restrict the physical claims accordingly.
  3. [Sec. V B] For Block H3a, the lower bound Omega_H3a >= 2^{2L-2} is introduced in a single sentence ("if we fix the deformations in the same direction along two axes...") with Fig. 6e as the only illustration. Since this lower bound is used to conclude that the H3a multiplicity is sub-extensive rather than merely bounded above, a short derivation that the specified configurations are all compatible and distinct should be included.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. VI A] In the paragraph containing the exact S4 count, the sentence "the multiplicity of compatible metamaterials constructed from Block C4" should read "Block S4".
  2. [Ref. [31]] The reference contains the typo "inlcuding"; it should read "including".
  3. [Sec. VI A] The step from the parity constraint on colorings to the count 2^{2(Lx+Ly)-2} of realizable textures would benefit from clarification: one first counts parity-satisfying colorings and then identifies colorings related by global inversion; as written, the phrase "one pixel set by parity" is easy to misread as fixing a specific boundary pixel.
  4. [Sec. II D] The statement that the hinge/strut pattern is centrally symmetric "in exactly the holographic cases" is made by inspection of the figures; because the blocks are exhaustively enumerated, a one-line verification for each block type would make the classification self-contained.
  5. [Appendix C] The protocol is described only for dimensions with Ly at least 5 (it refers to layers up to Ly-3 and to Ly-2, Ly-1, and Ly); please state the range of lattice sizes for which the construction is claimed to work and handle small lattices separately, or note that the claim is intended for sufficiently large systems.
  6. [Sec. V B] For the C2 and H2 cases, the paper cites earlier work for the precise lower and upper bounds; stating the known bounds explicitly would make the scaling summary in Table I easier to verify without consulting the cited papers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper’s core counting and texture-design results are self-contained combinatorial derivations within the stated single-soft-mode model.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular. The block classification in Sec. II is based on a definition of holographic order as the opposite-facet implication, and the central-symmetry criterion is a direct observation from the hinge/strut diagrams rather than a fitted parameter. The sub-extensive multiplicities for S3, C3, and H3a are obtained by explicit boundary-texture counting in Sec. V.B, with the boundary-determined-bulk property giving only the upper-bound part; the matching lower bounds are constructed case by case. The S4 exact multiplicity in Sec. VI.A follows from a parity bookkeeping formula and a scan argument proving realizability of every parity-consistent texture, with each independent boundary pixel and each two-sided internal block contributing one binary choice; this is a constructive combinatorial count, not a restatement of an input. The C5 protocol in Appendix C reduces the 3D problem to the independently proven S4 planar result, and the parity constraint is derived separately in Appendix B by face counting. The cited prior results for the C2 and H2 asymptotic coefficients [7,12] are published, externally available studies with non-overlapping coauthors, and they are used only for the already-known holographic cases, not to justify the paper’s novel non-holographic or exact-count claims. The only genuine limitations are the single-binary-soft-mode idealization and some unformalized steps in the C5 protocol, which are verification or idealization gaps rather than circular reasoning. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ own prior work.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; all multiplicity expressions are combinatorial counts with no fitted coefficients. The block types are geometric configurations realized as physical prototypes, not newly postulated physical entities such as particles or forces. The load-bearing axioms are the binary single-soft-mode model and the local loop-based compatibility criterion, both of which are stated explicitly in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Any loop in a simply connected lattice is a mod 2 sum of elementary loops around vertices or edges.
    Invoked in Sec. IV to justify checking compatibility on minimal loops only; the authors explicitly restrict to simply connected regions.
  • domain assumption Each building block has exactly one soft mode, with all facet displacements of equal magnitude and orthogonal to the facets.
    Stated in Sec. II as the defining restriction; it is the basis for the binary in/out description and for all multiplicity counts.
  • domain assumption Mechanical compatibility of the fabricated metamaterial is equivalent to the combinatorial hinge-parity condition.
    Secs. III and IV connect the idealized combinatorial model to physical prototypes; this equivalence is asserted rather than measured quantitatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breaking Mechanical Holography in Combinatorial Metamaterials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPNZVEJ3

@misc{pith2026241115760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breaking Mechanical Holography in Combinatorial Metamaterials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPNZVEJ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15760}
}
read the original abstract

Combinatorial mechanical metamaterials are made of anisotropic, flexible blocks, such that multiple metamaterials may be constructed using a single block type, and the system's response strongly depends on the mutual orientations of the blocks within the lattice. We study a family of possible block types for the square, honeycomb, and cubic lattices. Blocks that are centrally symmetric induce holographic order, such that mechanical compatibility (meaning that blocks do not impede each other's motion) implies bulk-boundary coupling. With them, one can design a compatible metamaterial that will deform in any desired texture only on part of its boundary. With blocks that break holographic order, we demonstrate how to design the deformation texture on the entire boundary. Correspondingly, the number of compatible holographic metamaterials scales exponentially with the boundary, while in non-holographic cases we show that it scales exponentially with the bulk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: demonstrates mechanical compatibility for a minimal loop in the square lattice, which includes four building blocks around a vertex in the lattice. Here, we use Block S3 to show that certain orientations of the blocks give a compatible structure, while other orienta- …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Defect Positioning in Combinatorial Metamaterials

    cond-mat.soft 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For most block types in square, honeycomb, and cubic combinatorial metamaterials, arbitrary defect patterns are realizable, while some block types exclude many patterns; in 3D all defect lines form closed curves and c...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Flexible mechanical metamaterials,

    Katia Bertoldi, Vincenzo Vitelli, Johan Christensen, and Martin van Hecke, “Flexible mechanical metamaterials,” Nature Reviews Materials 2, 1 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Soft network composite materials with deterministic and bio-inspired designs,

    Kyung-In Jang, Ha Uk Chung, Sheng Xu, Chi Hwan Lee, Haiwen Luan, Jaewoong Jeong, Huanyu Cheng, Gwang- Tae Kim, Sang Youn Han, Jung Woo Lee, Jeonghyun Kim, Moongee Cho, Fuxing Miao, Yiyuan Yang, Han Na Jung, Matthew Flavin, Howard Liu, Gil Woo Kong, Ki Jun Yu, Sang Il Rhee, Jeahoon Chung, Byunggik Kim, Jean Won Kwak, Myoung Hee Yun, Jin Young Kim, Young Mi...

    2015

  3. [3]

    Conformal elasticity of mechanism-based metamaterials,

    Michael Czajkowski, Corentin Coulais, Martin van Hecke, and D. Zeb Rocklin, “Conformal elasticity of mechanism-based metamaterials,” Nature Communica- tions 13, 211 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Non-orientable order and non-commutative response in frustrated metamate- rials,

    Xiaofei Guo, Marcelo Guzm´ an, David Carpentier, Denis Bartolo, and Corentin Coulais, “Non-orientable order and non-commutative response in frustrated metamate- rials,” Nature 618, 506 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Emergent disorder and mechanical memory in periodic metamate- rials,

    Chaviva Sirote-Katz, Dor Shohat, Carl Merrigan, Yoav Lahini, Cristiano Nisoli, and Yair Shokef, “Emergent disorder and mechanical memory in periodic metamate- rials,” Nature Communications 15, 4008 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Count- ing and sequential information processing in mechani- cal metamaterials,

    Lennard J. Kwakernaak and Martin van Hecke, “Count- ing and sequential information processing in mechani- cal metamaterials,” Physical Review Letters 130, 268204 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Combinatorial design of textured mechanical metamaterials,

    Corentin Coulais, Eial Teomy, Koen de Reus, Yair Shokef, and Martin van Hecke, “Combinatorial design of textured mechanical metamaterials,” Nature 535, 529 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Ran- dom tiling and topological defects in a two-dimensional molecular network,

    Matthew O. Blunt, James C. Russell, Mar ´ ıa del Carmen Gim´ enez-L´ opez, Juan P. Garrahan, Xiang Lin, Martin Schr¨ oder, Neil R. Champness, and Peter H. Beton, “Ran- dom tiling and topological defects in a two-dimensional molecular network,” Science 322, 1077–1081 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Unhappy vertices in artificial spin ice: new degeneracies from vertex frustration,

    Muir J. Morrison, Tammie R. Nelson, and Cristiano Nisoli, “Unhappy vertices in artificial spin ice: new degeneracies from vertex frustration,” New Journal of 16 Physics 15, 045009 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Complex Ordered Patterns in Mechanical Instability Induced Geometrically Frus- trated Triangular Cellular Structures,

    Sung Hoon Kang, Sicong Shan, Andrej Koˇ smrlj, Wim L. Noorduin, Samuel Shian, James C. Weaver, David R. Clarke, and Katia Bertoldi, “Complex Ordered Patterns in Mechanical Instability Induced Geometrically Frus- trated Triangular Cellular Structures,” Physical Review Letters 1...

    2014

  3. [11]

    Topology Restricts Quasidegeneracy in Sheared Square Colloidal Ice,

    Erdal C. O˘ guz, Antonio Ortiz-Ambriz, Hadas Shem- Tov, Eric Babi` a-Soler, Pietro Tierno, and Yair Shokef, “Topology Restricts Quasidegeneracy in Sheared Square Colloidal Ice,” Physical Review Letters 124, 238003 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Putting a spin on metamaterials: Mechanical incompatibility as magnetic frustration,

    Ben Pisanty, Erdal C. O˘ guz, Cristiano Nisoli, and Yair Shokef, “Putting a spin on metamaterials: Mechanical incompatibility as magnetic frustration,” SciPost Physics 10, 136 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Nonreciprocal frustration: Time crys- talline order-by-disorder phenomenon and a spin-glass- like state,

    Ryo Hanai, “Nonreciprocal frustration: Time crys- talline order-by-disorder phenomenon and a spin-glass- like state,” Physical Review X 14, 011029 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Spin glass with non-random interactions,

    J. Villain, “Spin glass with non-random interactions,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics10, 1717 (1977)

    1977

  7. [15]

    Jigsaw puzzle design of pluripotent origami,

    Peter Dieleman, Niek Vasmel, Scott Waitukaitis, and Martin van Hecke, “Jigsaw puzzle design of pluripotent origami,” Nature Physics 16, 63 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Topological defects produce exotic me- chanics in complex metamaterials,

    Anne S. Meeussen, Erdal C. O˘ guz, Yair Shokef, and Mar- tin van Hecke, “Topological defects produce exotic me- chanics in complex metamaterials,” Nature Physics 16, 307 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Oligomodal metamaterials with multifunctional mechanics,

    Aleksi Bossart, David M. J. Dykstra, Jop van der Laan, and Corentin Coulais, “Oligomodal metamaterials with multifunctional mechanics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2018610118 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Machine learning of im- plicit combinatorial rules in mechanical metamaterials,

    Ryan van Mastrigt, Marjolein Dijkstra, Martin van Hecke, and Corentin Coulais, “Machine learning of im- plicit combinatorial rules in mechanical metamaterials,” Physical Review Letters 129, 198003 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Emergent nonlocal combinatorial design rules for multimodal metamaterials,

    Ryan van Mastrigt, Corentin Coulais, and Martin van Hecke, “Emergent nonlocal combinatorial design rules for multimodal metamaterials,” Physical Review E 108, 065002 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Combinatorial design of floppy modes and frustrated loops in metamaterials,

    Wenfeng Liu, Tomer A. Sigalov, Corentin Coulais, and Yair Shokef, “Combinatorial design of floppy modes and frustrated loops in metamaterials,” arXiv:2503.12867 (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12867

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Response evolution of mechani- cal metamaterials under architectural transformations,

    Anne S. Meeussen, Erdal C. O˘ guz, Martin van Hecke, and Yair Shokef, “Response evolution of mechani- cal metamaterials under architectural transformations,” New Journal of Physics 22, 023030 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Defect positioning in combinatorial metamaterials,

    Chaviva Sirote-Katz, Yotam M. Y. Feldman, Guy Cohen, Tam´ as K´ alm´ an, and Yair Shokef, “Defect positioning in combinatorial metamaterials,” arXiv:2412.01227 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01227

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Geometrical device having articulated relatively movable sections,

    Ronald D. Resch, “Geometrical device having articulated relatively movable sections,” US Patent 3,201,894 (1965)

    1965

  16. [24]

    Negative Poisson’s ratio behavior induced by an elastic instability,

    Katia Bertoldi, Pedro M. Reis, Stephen Willshaw, and Tom Mullin, “Negative Poisson’s ratio behavior induced by an elastic instability,” Advanced Materials 22, 361 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Geometric charges and nonlinear elas- ticity of two-dimensional elastic metamaterials,

    Yohai Bar-Sinai, Gabriele Librandi, Katia Bertoldi, and Michael Moshe, “Geometric charges and nonlinear elas- ticity of two-dimensional elastic metamaterials,” Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 10195 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Characterization, stability, and ap- plication of domain walls in flexible mechanical metama- terials,

    Bolei Deng, Siqin Yu, Antonio E. Forte, Vincent Tournat, and Katia Bertoldi, “Characterization, stability, and ap- plication of domain walls in flexible mechanical metama- terials,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 31002 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Topo- logically protected steady cycles in an icelike mechani- cal metamaterial,

    Carl Merrigan, Cristiano Nisoli, and Yair Shokef, “Topo- logically protected steady cycles in an icelike mechani- cal metamaterial,” Physical Review Research 3, 023174 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Nonlinear conduction via solitons in a topolog- ical mechanical insulator,

    Bryan Gin-ge Chen, Nitin Upadhyaya, and Vincenzo Vitelli, “Nonlinear conduction via solitons in a topolog- ical mechanical insulator,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13004–13009 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Du- alities and non-Abelian mechanics,

    Michel Fruchart, Yujie Zhou, and Vincenzo Vitelli, “Du- alities and non-Abelian mechanics,” Nature577, 636–640 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Design of pseudo- mechanisms and multistable units for mechanical meta- materials,

    Nitin Singh and Martin van Hecke, “Design of pseudo- mechanisms and multistable units for mechanical meta- materials,” Physical Review Letters 126, 248002 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    The computer program for tiling with the different hexag- onal blocks is available at: https://theposom.itch.io/ metahex , inlcuding both an interactive online program and the possibility to download the code

  24. [32]

    The code for the program that implements our protocol for texture design with Block C5 is available at: https: //github.com/thePosom/Texture-Design

  25. [33]

    Artificial ‘spin ice’ in a geo- metrically frustrated lattice of nanoscale ferromagnetic islands,

    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 geo- metrically frustrated lattice of nanoscale ferromagnetic islands,” Nature 439, 303–306 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Colloquium: Artificial spin ice: Designing and imaging magnetic frustration,

    Cristiano Nisoli, Roderich Moessner, and Peter Schiffer, “Colloquium: Artificial spin ice: Designing and imaging magnetic frustration,” Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1473–1490 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Realizing Colloidal Artificial Ice on Arrays of Optical Traps,

    A. Lib´ al, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. Olson Reichhardt, “Realizing Colloidal Artificial Ice on Arrays of Optical Traps,” Physical Review Letters 97, 228302 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Engineering of frustration in colloidal artificial ices realized on mi- crofeatured grooved lattices,

    Antonio Ortiz-Ambriz and Pietro Tierno, “Engineering of frustration in colloidal artificial ices realized on mi- crofeatured grooved lattices,” Nature Communications7, 10575 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.