Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Topological Classification of Non-Normalizable Vector Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Non-normalizable vector fields—those with zeros in amplitude—can still carry well-defined topological charges after embedding into one higher dimension.

desk verdict The embedding construction is neat and the worked examples compute correctly, but the topological charge is set by a free lift function Γ, so the advertised classification of non-normalizable vector fields does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25848 v1 pith:EOE35EL3 submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.other cond-mat.softmath-phmath.MPphysics.optics

Philipp Gessler , Alessandro Pignedoli , Alexander Neuhaus , Frank-J. Meyer zu Heringdorf , Maria Azhar , Karin Everschor-Sitte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.othercond-mat.softmath-phmath.MPphysics.optics
keywords topologicalclassificationnon-normalizablevectorfieldsamplitudezeroshomotopyinvariantsembeddingliftskyrmionchargeBlochpointswindingnumber
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

This paper aims to extend homotopy-based topological classification to vector fields that cannot be normalized because their amplitude vanishes somewhere, such as Bloch points in magnets, vortex cores, and optical singularities. The proposed route is to rescale the field's image to a unit disk and then append an extra component, Γ(v)√(1−|v|²), so that the field becomes a unit vector on a sphere in one higher dimension. Once the base space is compactified to a sphere, the embedded field defines a map between spheres and carries a homotopy charge. The authors work out one-, two-, and three-dimensional examples, obtaining charges 1, −1 (a skyrmion), and −1 respectively, and argue these charges are stable under continuous deformations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the embedding lift: V = (v, Γ(v)√(1−|v|²)) ∈ S^n, with Γ a sign function (|Γ| = 1) chosen so that V is continuous. This converts a field v, whose image lies in the unit disk D^n, into a field on the unit sphere S^n with n+1 components, so that homotopy groups π_m(S^n) apply. In the examples, Γ is set by a sign rule such as sgn(x²−1/2) or sgn(1−r), and the topological charge reduces to a boundary term ½(Γ(∞)−Γ(0)).

What would settle it

Compute the one-dimensional charge from the paper's Eq. (8b) for the same field using two allowed continuous lifts: Γ≡1 gives Q = 0, while Γ = sgn(x²−1/2) gives Q = 1. Since the paper supplies no rule that selects one lift, the charge is not determined by the field alone, and the classification claim fails unless such a rule is added.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the obstruction to topological classification—field zeros that make the usual normalization v/|v| undefined—can be bypassed by working with the normalized (n+1)-component field V = (v, Γ(v)√(1−|v|²)), where v is the rescaled original field and Γ(v) = ±1 is a sign function chosen to keep V continuous. For a compactifiable base space S^m, V defines a continuous map S^m → S^n, so its homotopy class is classified by π_m(S^n). The paper computes charges for representative 1D, 2D, and 3D fields and finds Q = 1, Q = −1 (classified as a skyrmion), and Q = −1, respectively. These charges are topologically stable and can change only when the embedding itself becomes s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sign function Γ can be assigned to the field—rather than chosen by hand—so that the lift captures global information of the original field; the paper shows Γ≡1 gives charge 0 while other continuous choices give Q = 1 or −1, yet it offers no selection rule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fields with amplitude zeros—Bloch points, vortex cores, optical nulls—can be assigned a global topological charge instead of being excised or treated only as defects.
  • The two-dimensional example turns a non-normalizable vortex-like field into a skyrmion with charge −1, showing that planar textures with vanishing amplitude can be topologically nontrivial.
  • The construction extends dimension by dimension: a three-dimensional field becomes a map S^3 → S^3 classified by π_3(S^3) = Z, yielding a three-dimensional charge.
  • Because the charges are homotopy invariants of the embedded field, they are stable under continuous deformations that preserve the embedding structure.
  • The method also covers compactifiable fields with nonzero asymptotic values, such as double-domain-wall profiles, after an additional target-space rescaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to seek a canonical rule for choosing Γ(v) from the field geometry—for instance from level sets of |v| or the Hessian at zeros—which would make the resulting charge intrinsic to the original field rather than a choice of lift.
  • If the construction is to be experimentally useful, the extra component Γ√(1−|v|²) suggests that amplitude profiles, not just orientations, carry topological information; one could then test whether measured amplitudes yield consistent charges across different imaging modalities.
  • The boundary-value form of the charge suggests a testable conjecture: any two continuous lifts with the same boundary values of Γ at zeros and infinity produce the same homotopy class, which would narrow the apparent ambiguity.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes to classify non-normalizable vector fields by first rescaling a field v:R^m→D^n and then embedding it as V=(v, Γ(v)√(1−|v|²))∈S^n, with homotopy classes in π_m(S^n) as invariants. Three examples are worked: Q_{1D}=1 from Eq. (8b), Q_{2D}=−1, and Q_{3D}=−1. The explicit computations for the chosen Γ are internally consistent, but the central claim is not. The sign function Γ is an arbitrary auxiliary lift with no selection rule; the same field admits Γ≡1 with zero charge (App. A) and other continuous choices with nonzero charge. Moreover, the 2D and 3D examples use Γ as a base-space function that is not a function of the target point v, contradicting Eq. (3b). The charges are therefore not invariants of the original field as stated.

Significance. If the central claim held, the construction would provide a unified topological characterization of fields with amplitude zeros, which is an interesting and potentially useful goal. A strength is the transparency of the worked examples. However, the lack of a field-determined Γ means the framework is not a classification of vector fields; it reduces to standard homotopy classification of maps S^m→S^n with a chosen lift. The manuscript explicitly concedes that the trivial lift always exists and gives zero charge for the same fields, and the examples rely on hand-picked sign functions. The internal inconsistency between Eq. (3b) and the examples further undermines the claimed framework. As presented, the paper does not establish robust topological invariants of non-normalizable vector fields.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (8b), App. A] The invariant depends on an arbitrary lift Γ, not on the field. Eq. (8b) gives Q_{1D}=½(Γ(∞)−Γ(0)), with Γ not fixed by v. For the same field, Γ≡1 yields Q=0 (explicitly admitted in App. A), Γ=sgn(x²−1/2) yields Q=1, and its negative yields Q=−1. No selection principle is supplied. Thus the charge is a functional of the pair (v,Γ), not an invariant of v; the classification claim is unsupported. The same issue propagates to Q_{2D} and Q_{3D}, which are set entirely by the boundary values of the hand-picked Γ.
  2. [§II Eq. (3b) vs §III.B/C] Eq. (3b) defines Γ as a function on the target disk, Γ(v). But the examples set Γ_{2D}(r)=sgn(1−r) and Γ_{3D}(r)=sgn(1−r) as functions of r. Because v_{2D}(r)=e^{1−r}r is two-to-one for 0<|v|<1, the same target point occurs with r<1 and r>1, hence with opposite Γ; no function Γ(v) reproduces this choice. More generally, a continuous function with |Γ|=1 on a connected disk D^n must be constant, so a true Γ(v) gives only the trivial lift. The examples are therefore instances of a different construction than the one stated.
  3. [§IV, Discussion] The robustness claim that the charges 'cannot change under continuous deformations... only when the embedding structure becomes singular' is conditional on a fixed Γ. Since Γ can be changed arbitrarily without changing v, the same physical configuration can be placed in different homotopy classes, and homotopy-equivalent configurations can be assigned different charges. The paper does not define an equivalence relation on the original fields, so no topological classification of vector fields is obtained; at most it yields a classification of (field,lift) pairs, which is standard homotopy theory.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) uses Γ(˜v(r)) although Γ was introduced as Γ_{2D}(r) in Eq. (11b); the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [§II, Eq. (2b)] At points where ˜v=0 the angular coordinate χ is undefined; the rescaling step should state how continuity is defined at field zeros.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The displayed formula for f(x) is visually ambiguous; enclosing the denominator in parentheses would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Topological charge is set by the freely chosen lift Γ, not by the field: Eq. (8b) gives Q1D = ½(Γ(∞)−Γ(0)), and App. A admits Γ≡1 gives Q=0 for the same field.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.A, Eq. (8b)]
    "Q1D = 1/2 (Γ1D(∞) − Γ1D(0)). For the choice of Γ(x) defined above, the embedded field V1D has winding number Q1D = 1."

    The original field v1D vanishes at x=0 and infinity, so continuity imposes no value on Γ1D(0) or Γ1D(∞). Eq. (8b) therefore defines the charge as the boundary difference of a free sign function. App. A explicitly says Γ≡1 gives a contractible map with vanishing charge, while nontrivial lifts give charges of opposite sign. The Q=1 result is not derived from the field; it is installed by the hand-picked Γ1D=sgn(x²−1/2).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.B/C, Eqs. (11b), (13), (16)]
    "Γ2D(r) = sgn(∂r|v2D|) = sgn (1−r) is chosen such that V2D is continuous. ... Q2D = 1/2 (Γ(˜v(r))√(1−|˜v(r)|²))|∞_0. ... Since the field vanishes at r=0 and r=∞, and the chosen Γ2D(r) satisfies Γ(˜v(∞)) =−1 and Γ(˜v(0)) = 1, we obtain Q2D =−1."

    At r=0 and r=∞ the magnitude |v2D|=0, so Γ is unconstrained there. Eq. (13) makes the charge exactly ½(Γ(0)−Γ(∞)) (up to sign convention). The 'derived' skyrmion charge −1 is therefore a direct transcription of the chosen boundary values Γ(0)=1, Γ(∞)=−1; the 3D charge Q3D=½(Γ3D(∞)−Γ3D(0))=−1 is the same free choice. Calling this a predicted classification of the field is circular: the signs are the input.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Appendix A vs. Sec. III.B, Eq. (10b)/(11b)]
    "For every point v in the interior of the unit disk D^n, the embedding construction associates two possible points on the sphere S^n... Γ2D(r) = sgn(∂r|v2D|) = sgn(1−r)."

    For v2D(r)=e^{1−r}r, each interior target point |v|<1 has two real-space preimages, r<1 and r>1, carrying opposite Γ values. Thus Γ is not a function of the target point v as Eq. (3b) and Appendix A require; it is an arbitrary sign assigned to preimages in real space. This is what allows the same field to carry charge 0 (Γ≡1) or ±1, so the claimed 'lift of D^n' is not a property of the field.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular in the self-citation sense: the homotopy classification of maps S^m→S^n is standard and cited to Nakahara/Mermin, and the paper's own prior work is not load-bearing. The circularity is internal. Eq. (3b) defines V from the field v and a free sign Γ. Because |v|=0 at the compactification points used in all examples, Γ(0) and Γ(∞) are never fixed by continuity. Eq. (8b) then computes Q1D from exactly those two free signs, and Eqs. (13)/(16) do the same in 2D and 3D. Appendix A concedes the trivial lift Γ≡1 gives vanishing charge and that different lifts give different charges. The paper asserts, without a selection rule, that nontrivial lifts 'capture global information contained in the original field,' but on the paper's own formulas the charge is a functional of (field, Γ), not of the field. The examples' charges Q=1, −1, −1 are therefore inputs (chosen Γ) relabeled as derived invariants. The additional inconsistency that Γ is not a function of v in the 2D/3D examples makes the freedom even more explicit. Score 8: the classification claim reduces by construction to an arbitrary lift choice; only the trivial statement 'homotopy of a chosen embedding is homotopy of that embedding' remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The construction is an elementary, internally correct embedding of maps into a ball as maps into a sphere. The ledger shows why the advertised result is not delivered: the only truly free input, the sign function Γ, determines the charge via boundary values (Eqs. 8b, 13), and the same field admits trivial (zero-charge) lifts, so the charge is an input rather than an invariant of the field. The framework's domain is also narrower than the abstract suggests (star-body target images; compactifiable base). No new physical entities are postulated; the Sⁿ embedding is purely mathematical.

free parameters (2)
  • Lift sign function Γ = Γ_1D = sgn(x²−1/2); Γ_2D = Γ_3D = sgn(1−r); Γ_DDW = sgn(∂ₓv_DDW)
    Free sign function choosing the hemisphere of Sⁿ for each real-space point, continuous with jumps only on {|v|=1}. The charges are boundary values of Γ: Q_1D = ½(Γ(∞)−Γ(0)) (Eq. 8b), Q_2D/Q_3D = −1 from Γ(∞) = −1, Γ(0) = +1. Γ ≡ 1 (App. A) gives Q = 0 for the same fields. The charge is fixed by this hand-chosen input, not by the field.
  • Target-rescaling function f = f ≡ 1 (main text); f(x) ≈ 1/(|v_min|−|v_max|)·e^{−x²} + |v_max| (App. B, Eq. B2)
    Free function in Eq. (2b) specifying how target-space points are rescaled into D^n. In App. B it is a hand-picked function of real-space position (inconsistent with Sec. II's f(ṽ)) and shapes the profile v_DDW, hence the Γ-rule and the resulting winding Q_DDW = 1.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Homotopy classification of continuous maps S^m → S^n by π_m(S^n) (Nakahara [2])
    Used throughout to claim that V's homotopy class is a topological invariant. Standard and accepted background.
  • domain assumption Target-space image D̃ⁿ is a closed star body with respect to the origin (Sec. II, before Eq. (1))
    Needed so that the per-direction maximum R(χ) defines a continuous radial rescaling to the unit disk. Excludes fields whose image is an annulus or disconnected — precisely classes where conventional normalization (no zeros) works, so the 'extension' and the standard method do not share a common domain. The claim that v's image 'fully covers D^n' also requires surjectivity, which the construction does not guarantee.
  • domain assumption Base space is compactifiable (field approaches a constant at infinity or satisfies compact boundary conditions) (Secs. I, II)
    Standard for homotopy classification and explicitly stated. Fields without a well-defined compactification are outside the framework.
  • ad hoc to paper A distinguished continuous lift Γ exists and nontrivial lifts 'capture global information' of the field (App. A)
    Continuity alone is satisfied by Γ ≡ 1 (trivial, zero charge). The content claims require that some nontrivial Γ is canonical for the field; this is asserted without a selection rule and is contradicted by the 2D example, where both branches r<1 and r>1 map onto the entire open disk, so Γ cannot be a function of the target point v as Eq. (3b) suggests.
invented entities (1)
  • Higher-dimensional embedding sphere Sⁿ and lift sign function Γ (auxiliary target space)
    purpose: Target space for the normalized field V = (v, Γ√(1−|v|²)); the charges are degrees/winding numbers on this auxiliary sphere, not quantities in physical space.
    Mathematical auxiliary, not claimed physical; the paper defers physical interpretation and measurable signatures to future work (Sec. IV). The risk is that the invariants live in this auxiliary space and depend on the arbitrary lift, so no falsifiable physical consequence follows from the framework as stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological Classification of Non-Normalizable Vector Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EOE35EL3

@misc{pith2026260725848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological Classification of Non-Normalizable Vector Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EOE35EL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25848}
}
abstract

Topological classification of physical vector fields conventionally relies on field normalization and homotopy-based invariants. However, when field amplitudes vanish, normalization becomes ill-defined, preventing a direct topological characterization. Here, we introduce a general framework for the topological classification of non-normalizable $n$-dimensional vector fields with compactifiable base spaces by transforming them into $(n+1)$-dimensional normalized vector fields. This construction extends homotopy-based classification to fields containing amplitude zeros. We explicitly demonstrate the approach for one-, two-, and three-dimensional non-normalized vector fields and derive the corresponding topological invariants. The resulting topological charges are robust under continuous deformations and can change only when the embedding structure becomes singular. Our framework provides a unified route to the topological characterization of non-normalizable fields and opens the door to the study of topological phenomena in a broad range of systems, including magnetic textures, ferroelectrics, electromagnetic fields, and wave systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the mapping of a 1D field ˜v [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional example of the embedding procedure. (a) Original non-normalizable field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three-dimensional example of the embedding procedure. (a) Illustration of the original non-normalizable vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-dimensional double-domain-wall example of the radial-rescaling and embedding procedure. (a) Original non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, 2nd ed

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, 2nd ed. (Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    N. D. Mermin, The topological theory of defects in or- dered media, Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 591 (1979)

    1979

  4. [4]

    Bogdanov and A

    A. Bogdanov and A. Hubert, Thermodynamically stable magnetic vortex states in magnetic crystals, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.138, 255 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Skyrmion lattice in a chiral magnet, Science323, 915 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Azhar, S

    M. Azhar, S. C. Shaju, R. Knapman, A. Pignedoli, and K. Everschor-Sitte, 3d magnetic textures with mixed topology: Unlocking the tunable Hopf index, SciPost Phys.21, 023 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Koraltan, C

    S. Koraltan, C. Abert, M. Albrecht, M. Azhar, C. Back, H. B´ ea, M. T. Birch, S. Bl¨ ugel, O. Boulle, F. B¨ uttner, P. Che, V. Cros, E. Darwin, L. Desplat, C. Donnelly, H. Du, K. Everschor-Sitte, A. Fern´ andez- Pacheco, S. Finizio, G. Finocchio, M. Garst, R. Gru- ber, D. Grundler, S. Hayami, T. Hesjedal, A. Hoffmann, A. Hrabec, H. J. Hug, H. Jani, J. Jen...

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    P. G. D. Gennes and J. Prost,The Physics of Liquid Crystals(Oxford University Press, 1993)

    1993

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Fukuda and ˇZ

    J. Fukuda and ˇZ. Slobodan, Quasi-two-dimensional skyrmion lattices in a chiral nematic liquid crystal, Nat. Commun.2, 246 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Jin-Sheng and I

    W. Jin-Sheng and I. Smalyukh, Hopfions, heliknotons, skyrmions, torons and both abelian and nonabelian vor- tices in chiral liquid crystals, Liq. Cryst. Rev.10, 34 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hall, J.-S

    D. Hall, J.-S. B. Tai, L. H. Kauffman, and I. I. Smalyukh, Fusion and fission of particle-like chiral nematic vortex knots, Nat. Phys.22, 103 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    I. I. Naumov, L. Bellaiche, and H. Fu, Unusual phase transitions in ferroelectric nanodisks and nanorods, Na- ture432, 737 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    A. K. Yadav, C. T. Nelson, S. L. Hsu, Z. Hong, J. D. Clarkson, C. M. Schlep¨ utz, A. R. Damodaran, P. Shafer, E. Arenholz, L. R. Dedon, D. Chen, A. Vishwanath, A. M. Minor, L. Q. Chen, J. F. Scott, L. W. Martin, and R. Ramesh, Observation of polar vortices in oxide superlattic...

    2016

  6. [14]

    Y. Wang, Y. Tang, Y. Zhu, and X. Ma, Entangled po- larizations in ferroelectrics: A focused review of polar topologies, Acta Mater.243, 118485 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    I. A. Lukyanchuk, A. G. Razumnaya, S. Kondovych, Y. A. Tikhonov, B. Khesin, and V. M. Vinokur, Topo- logical foundations of ferroelectricity, Phys. Rep.1110, 1 (2025), topological foundations of ferroelectricity

    2025

  8. [16]

    A. A. Abrikosov, On the Magnetic Properties of Super- conductors of the Second Group, Sov. Phys. JETP5, 1174 (1957)

    1957

  9. [17]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Point and line singularities in superfluid 3he, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.11, 1351 (1978)

    1978

  10. [18]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Delplace, J

    P. Delplace, J. B. Marston, and A. Venaille, Topological origin of equatorial waves, Science358, 1075 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    B. Wang, Z. Che, C. Cheng, C. Tong, L. Shi, Y. Shen, 8 K. Y. Bliokh, and J. Zi, Topological water-wave struc- tures manipulating particles, Nature638, 394 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Tsesses, E

    S. Tsesses, E. Ostrovsky, K. Cohen, B. Gjonaj, N. H. Lindner, and G. Bartal, Optical skyrmion lattice in evanescent electromagnetic fields, Science361, 993 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tsesses, P

    S. Tsesses, P. Dreher, D. Janoschka, A. Neuhaus, K. Co- hen, T. C. Meiler, T. Bucher, S. Sapir, B. Frank, T. J. Davis, F. M. zu Heringdorf, H. Giessen, and G. Bartal, Four-dimensional conserved topological charge vectors in plasmonic quasicrystals, Science387, 644 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Neuhaus, P

    A. Neuhaus, P. Gessler, P. Dreher, D. Janoschka, A. R¨ odl, M. Manten, T. Bauer, M. Azhar, B. Frank, T. J. Davis, H. Giessen, K. Everschor-Sitte, and F. M. zu Heringdorf, Linking extended vector wave fields with momentum space topology (2026), arXiv:2604.26610

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. A. Smirnova, F. Nori, and K. Y. Bliokh, Water-wave vortices and skyrmions, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 054003 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y. Shen, H. Wang, and S. Fan, Free-space topological optical textures: tutorial, Adv. Opt. Photonics17, 295 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    A. Fert, R. Nicolas, and C. Vincent, Magnetic skyrmions: advances in physics and potential applications, Nat. Rev. Mater.2, 17031 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    K. Wang, V. Bheemarasetty, J. Duan, S. Zhou, and G. Xiao, Fundamental physics and applications of skyrmions: A review, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.563, 169905 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Y. Li, Y. Wei, R. Guo, Y. Wang, H. Zhang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Shi, Y. Shi, C. Wang, and Z. Fei, Un- usual topological polar texture in moir´ e ferroelectrics, Nat. Commun.16, 5451 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    T. J. Davis, D. Janoschka, P. Dreher, B. Frank, F.-J. M. zu Heringdorf, and H. Giessen, Ultrafast vector imag- ing of plasmonic skyrmion dynamics with deep subwave- length resolution, Science368, eaba6415 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Da Col, S

    S. Da Col, S. Jamet, N. Rougemaille, A. Locatelli, T. O. Mentes, B. S. Burgos, R. Afid, M. Darques, L. Cagnon, J. C. Toussaint, and O. Fruchart, Observation of Bloch- point domain walls in cylindrical magnetic nanowires, Phys. Rev. B89, 180405(R) (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Azhar, V

    M. Azhar, V. P. Kravchuk, and M. Garst, Screw dislo- cations in chiral magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 157204 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    V. M. Kuchkin, A. Haller, ˇS. Liˇ sˇ c´ ak, M. P. Adams, V. Rai, E. P. Sinaga, A. Michels, and T. L. Schmidt, Quantum and classical magnetic bloch points, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013195 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    V. M. Kuchkin, A. Haller, A. Michels, T. L. Schmidt, and N. S. Kiselev, Regularized micromagnetic theory for Bloch points, Commun. Phys.9, 147 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Michel, Symmetry defects and broken symmetry

    L. Michel, Symmetry defects and broken symmetry. con- figurations hidden symmetry, Rev. Mod. Phys.52, 617 (1980)

    1980

  27. [35]

    G. E. Volovik,The Universe in a Helium Droplet(Oxford University Press, 2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Catalan, J

    G. Catalan, J. Seidel, R. Ramesh, and J. F. Scott, Do- main wall nanoelectronics, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 119 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    P. G. de Gennes,Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (Benjamin, New York, 1966)

    1966

  31. [39]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Sch¨ afer,Magnetic Domains: The Anal- ysis of Magnetic Microstructures(Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Shinjo, T

    T. Shinjo, T. Okuno, R. Hassdorf, K. Shigeto, and T. Ono, Magnetic vortex core observation in circular dots of permalloy, Science289, 930 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    J. F. Nye and M. V. Berry, Dislocations in wave trains, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A.336, 165 (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    Dennis, K

    M. Dennis, K. O’Holleran, and M. Padgett, Chapter 5 singular optics: Optical vortices and polarization singu- larities, inProgress in Optics, Vol. 53 (Elsevier, 2009) pp. 293–363

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.