Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 100 references

Every symmetry-indicated fragile phase in a two-dimensional crystal becomes an atomic insulator after a finite unit-cell enlargement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Every symmetry-indicated fragile phase in any 2D wallpaper group is adiabatically connected to an atomic insulator in some finite symmetry-compatible supercell, with the minimal supercell index tabulated for every symmetry class.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid, checkable result on symmetry-indicated fragile phases in 2D, but the title overstates what the math actually proves. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18386 v1 pith:VFHKQ4JD submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mes-hall

Fragile Topology is Unstable Under Translation Refinement

Yoonseok Hwang , Saavanth Velury , Taylor L. Hughes This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords fragile topologywallpaper groupssymmetry indicatorsband representationsunit-cell enlargementHilbert basisatomic insulatorstranslation symmetry refinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether fragile topological phases survive when the lattice's unit cell is enlarged while all crystalline symmetries are preserved. Treating enlargement as band folding, it shows that every symmetry-indicated fragile phase in every two-dimensional wallpaper group—with or without spin-orbit coupling or time-reversal symmetry—becomes atomic after a finite supercell enlargement. An arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation can then connect it to an ordinary atomic insulator. The proof reduces this to integer linear algebra: each enlargement induces a linear map on symmetry-data vectors, and trivialization means the image lands in the cone of atomic data. The paper tabulates the minimal supercell index at which all fragile roots vanish for each symmetry class, showing that fragile topology has only finite stability under translation refinement.

Core claim

The central claim is that symmetry-indicated fragile topology in 2D is always finitely unstable under translation-symmetry refinement. A fragile phase is one whose symmetry data is a formal difference of band representations with a mandatory negative term—an 'electron–positron' pair in real space. Enlarging the unit cell folds bands and re-labels Wyckoff positions, which the paper encodes as an integer linear map on orbital multiplicities and hence on symmetry-data vectors. The criterion for trivialization is whether applying this map to every fragile root produces a nonnegative integer combination of atomic Hilbert-basis generators. Computing this for all wallpaper groups, spinless and spin

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Hilbert-basis decomposition of symmetry-data vectors. Atomic phases form a cone generated by a finite Hilbert basis; atomic-plus-fragile phases form a larger cone whose extra generators are called fragile roots. Unit-cell enlargement is represented by an integer matrix that reorganizes Wannier orbitals into the supercell, inducing a linear map on irrep-multiplicity vectors. Trivialization is decided by a Diophantine criterion: the image of each fragile root must decompose as a nonnegative integer combination of atomic generators. A complementary electron–positron picture supplies the physical intuition for why annihilation is possible after enlargement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that having the same symmetry-indicated irrep multiplicities as an atomic insulator in the supercell guarantees an adiabatic, gap-preserving path to that atomic insulator—an assumption the paper explicitly leaves unproven and which is known to fail for topology invisible to eigenvalues.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit tight-binding model for one of the listed wallpaper groups at the predicted minimal supercell index whose symmetry-data vector becomes atomic, but whose Wilson-loop winding or corner charge remains nontrivial under every small symmetry-preserving perturbation; that would refute the claimed adiabatic trivialization.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A symmetry-indicated fragile phase can always be destroyed by a commensurate superlattice or charge-density-wave potential whose period realizes the predicted supercell index, while preserving the wallpaper symmetry.
  • Any physical response that is invariant under symmetry-compatible unit-cell enlargement cannot uniquely characterize fragile topology, since the phase becomes indistinguishable from an atomic insulator at that scale.
  • In higher-symmetry groups such as spinless p6, fragile phases survive small enlargements but vanish at a larger finite index, so the trivialization scale is explicit and can be targeted in experiment.
  • Euler-class fragile phases protected by C2zT symmetry are expected to trivialize under sufficiently large enlargement, consistent with the general framework.
  • Whether finite enlargement stability persists in three-dimensional space groups remains an open question.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this is right, 'fragile' is not an intrinsic property of a band structure but a property relative to a chosen translation group; any complete classification should state the unit-cell scale alongside the phase label.
  • A testable extension: driving a real material through a symmetry-preserving superlattice potential at the predicted index should collapse fragile-response signatures such as Wilson-loop winding while keeping the gap open.
  • The same Hilbert-basis and cone method could be applied to symmetry-changing enlargements that connect different wallpaper groups, where the fragile-to-atomic mapping may differ from the symmetry-preserving case.
  • For non-symmetry-indicated fragile phases the paper offers only case-by-case adiabatic analysis, so a general theorem covering all fragile phases remains an open, plausible conjecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hilbert-basis framework for analyzing the fate of symmetry-indicated fragile topology under symmetry-preserving unit-cell enlargement in all 2D wallpaper groups. It represents unit-cell enlargement as an integer linear map on symmetry-data vectors (Eq. (28)), then checks, for each fragile root, whether its image lies in the atomic cone (Eq. (30)). The main quantitative output is the minimal enlargement index N* for each symmetry class (Tables I–II), with the p2 case worked out in detail: the fragile root of Eq. (6) becomes atomic in the 2x1 supercell via the decomposition of Eq. (34). The authors conclude that every symmetry-indicated fragile phase has finite stability under translation refinement and can be trivialized by an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation.

Significance. If the symmetry-data statement is taken as the result, the paper provides a systematic and useful classification: for every 2D wallpaper group, all symmetry-indicated fragile roots become atomic at some finite, explicitly bounded supercell index. The p2 example is fully checkable and internally consistent, the Hilbert-basis method is rigorous and builds on the external classification of Ref. [60], and the N* tables are concrete and falsifiable. The physical electron–positron picture in Sec. II is pedagogically illuminating. However, the paper's central advertised conclusion is broader than the proof: the proof establishes a condition on irrep multiplicities, not adiabatic connectivity of Hamiltonians. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation in Sec. IV and Sec. VI, which makes the abstract's dynamical phrasing an overstatement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV, Eq. (30)] The proof establishes only that M_v · v_FR lies in the atomic cone. This is a Diophantine condition on symmetry-data vectors, not a statement about Hamiltonians. The abstract's conclusion that every symmetry-indicated fragile phase 'is adiabatically connected to an atomic insulator ... and can therefore be trivialized by an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation' requires completeness of the symmetry data for the phase. The paper itself disclaims this in Sec. IV ('we do not consider the possibility of additional topology not captured by symmetry data') and Sec. VI leaves Euler-class fragile phases open; Ref. [67] shows eigenvalue data can under-determine topology. A phase carrying an additional non-indicated invariant could remain non-adiabatic to an atomic insulator even after its indicated data becomes atomic. Please either restrict the claims to symmetry-data trivializatio
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (27)] The vanishing of BR·M_orb·m_ker is asserted as 'explicitly verified' for all wallpaper groups and enlargements, but no proof or code is provided. This property is load-bearing because Eq. (28) defines M_v only when this term vanishes; the exhaustive N* tables in Tables I–II depend on it for every group. The same applies to the consistency condition BR·M_orb·q_adia = 0 in Eq. (29), which is stated without proof. Please provide a general argument (e.g., via the Smith normal form of BR) or ship the verification code/data so that the exhaustive computational claim is independently checkable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV] The text says 'Consistency requires that BR·M_orb·q_adia = 0' but does not explain why this condition follows from the physical requirement that v' be unchanged under adiabatic deformations. A short derivation would improve clarity.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The example solution m = (-1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0) and the kernel vector are correct, but the statement 'every representative obtained by adding a kernel vector still contains at least one negative multiplicity' is not proved for all kernel vectors. A one-line argument or a reference to the general Hilbert-basis criterion would help.
  3. [Tables I–II] The notation N_FR appears as NFR in the tables; please unify. Also, the caption 'Allowed N_sc' lists the smallest three nontrivial indices, but the text should state this explicitly in the main body as well.
  4. [General] There are several grammatical slips, e.g., 'fragile topology has is eventually unstable' in Sec. VI and 'Hilbert-basis' inconsistent hyphenation. These do not affect the physics.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Formal computation is self-contained, but the abstract's dynamical conclusion is reached by labeling the symmetry-data criterion "trivialization" and then asserting the physical consequence that the criterion does not prove.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. IV, Eq. (30) and the Abstract/Sec. VI]
    "In this work, we refer to this situation as trivialization. Since we focus on symmetry-indicated phases, we do not consider the possibility of additional topology not captured by symmetry data. ... whenever fragile roots exist, there always exists a finite supercell index N* at which all fragile roots become atomic. ... can therefore be trivialized by an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation."

    The proof (Eq. 30) establishes only that M_v·v_FR lies in the atomic cone, i.e. a nonnegative integer combination of atomic Hilbert basis generators. The paper defines 'trivialization' as exactly this symmetry-data membership. The Abstract then asserts the same word 'trivialized' for the physical process of an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation to an atomic insulator. That dynamical conclusion requires a completeness theorem: atomic symmetry data in the supercell must imply a gap-preserving adiabatic path. The paper explicitly disclaims this ('we do not consider the possibility of additional topology not captured by symmetry data') and cites Ref. [67] showing eigenvalue data can under-determine topology. Thus the physical claim is imported through the definition of 'trivial

full rationale

The Hilbert-basis framework is checked against externally defined benchmarks: atomicity is the nonnegative-integer cone generated by BR columns, and the fragile-root classification is imported from Ref. [60], which has no author overlap with this paper. The N* values in Tables I–II are outputs of finite Normaliz computations, not fitted parameters, and the p2 tight-binding model provides an independent Wilson-loop check. The only significant circularity-like step is terminological: Eq. (30) is called 'trivialization', and the Abstract uses the same word to assert adiabatic connectivity and perturbation trivialization. This is a definitional substitution rather than a proven equivalence, and the paper's own Sec. IV and Sec. VI disclaimers acknowledge the missing completeness of symmetry indicators. Because the central computational result (finite enlargement stability of symmetry-indicated fragile roots) is independent and not engineered by construction, the circularity score is moderate (3), reflecting the gap between the symmetry-data statement and the physical conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a parameter-free combinatorial statement about symmetry data; the only numerical parameters in the paper (m = 0.25, perturbation strength 0.2) belong to the illustrative tight-binding model. The main axioms are standard TQC background (Bilbao BR data, Ref. [60] classification) plus two paper-specific premises: the asserted kernel-vanishing condition (Eq. 27) and the completeness of symmetry indicators for the adiabatic-connectivity conclusion, which the paper itself hedges. No new physical entities are introduced: the electron-positron representation is a bookkeeping device adapted from Ref. [32].

free parameters (2)
  • Tight-binding mass m = 0.25
    SM S3: hand-chosen mass in H0(k) that opens the gap and mixes the two Chern copies to realize the fragile phase in the illustrative p2 model. Not fitted to the central claim; demonstration only.
  • Perturbation strength in H_pert = 0.2
    SM S3, Eq. (S30): strength of the C2-preserving perturbation used to remove the accidental Wilson-loop winding in the 2×1 supercell. Demonstration only; the central claim does not depend on this value.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption BR matrices and site-symmetry irrep data from the Bilbao Crystallographic Server are complete and correct for all 17 wallpaper groups.
    Sec. V uses WYCKPOS, Representations PG, and BANDREP as ground truth for the band-representation matrices; standard TQC input.
  • domain assumption The Hilbert-basis / affine-monoid classification of fragile roots from Ref. [60] is correct.
    Sec. III builds directly on Ref. [60]; the finite set of fragile roots that the enlargement analysis tracks is defined by that prior classification.
  • domain assumption Symmetry-data atomicity in the supercell implies adiabatic connectivity to an atomic insulator (completeness of symmetry indicators).
    Eq. (30) is a statement about irrep multiplicities, but the abstract concludes 'trivialized by an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation.' The paper hedges in Sec. IV and cites Ref. [67], which documents topology invisible to symmetry eigenvalues.
  • ad hoc to paper BR·M_orb·m_ker = 0 for all wallpaper groups and enlargements examined.
    Eq. (27): the second term is asserted to vanish after 'explicitly verified' computation, with no proof or code shipped. All M_v matrices and the N* values in Tables I–II depend on this premise.
  • domain assumption The supercell compatibility conditions (SM S2, Eqs. S18–S21) correctly capture all symmetry-preserving enlargements in every wallpaper group.
    The conjugation condition S^{-1} M_P S = M_P plus fractional-translation consistency defines the 'symmetry-compatible' scope of the theorem.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fragile Topology is Unstable Under Translation Refinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFHKQ4JD

@misc{pith2026260718386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fragile Topology is Unstable Under Translation Refinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFHKQ4JD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18386}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Fragile topological phases become trivial upon the addition of suitable trivial bands, distinguishing them from stable topological phases. Nevertheless, various response phenomena and material realizations have been proposed for fragile phases. At the same time, many of these phenomena can also occur in atomic insulators, leaving open the question of what properties are specific to fragile phases. Enlarging the unit cell offers a natural perspective on this question. Band folding increases the number of bands in a manner analogous to adding trivial bands. In this work, we establish a systematic framework for determining the stability of fragile topology under unit-cell enlargement. We first establish a systematic criterion for trivialization under enlargements compatible with space-group symmetry, grounded in a physical electron-positron picture and formulated through a Hilbert-basis analysis of momentum-space symmetry data. We then show that, for all two-dimensional wallpaper groups, with or without spin-orbit coupling and/or time-reversal symmetry, every symmetry-indicated fragile phase is adiabatically connected to an atomic insulator in a suitable finite supercell and can therefore be trivialized by an arbitrarily small symmetry-preserving perturbation. Our results reveal that fragile topology has only finite stability under translation-symmetry refinement. This highlights that the fate of a fragile phase can depend on translation-symmetry-breaking perturbations, such as charge-density-wave ordering, and suggests that physical signatures insensitive to translation refinement are unlikely to uniquely characterize fragile topology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18386 by Saavanth Velury, Taylor L. Hughes, Yoonseok Hwang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Wyckoff positions (WPs), 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (d), consistent with the electron–positron picture. The explicit form of the perturbation Hamiltonian is given in the SM [68]. The electron–positron picture and Wilson-loop analy￾sis provide a concrete demonstration of trivialization by unit-cell enlargement for this specific example. In partic￾ular, the former approach, together with the adiabatic￾process matrix qadia, offers valuable physical insight and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic illustration of the Hilbert-basis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Shiozaki, M

    K. Shiozaki, M. Sato, and K. Gomi, Topology of non- symmorphic crystalline insulators and superconductors, Physical Review B93, 195413 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Shiozaki, M

    K. Shiozaki, M. Sato, and K. Gomi, Topological crys- talline materials: General formulation, module structure, and wallpaper groups, Physical Review B95, 235425 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Shiozaki, M

    K. Shiozaki, M. Sato, and K. Gomi, Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence in band topology: General formalism and topological invariants for 230 space groups, Physical Review B106, 165103 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Kruthoff, J

    J. Kruthoff, J. De Boer, J. Van Wezel, C. L. Kane, and R.-J. Slager, Topological classification of crystalline in- sulators through band structure combinatorics, Physical Review X7, 041069 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and H. Watanabe, Symmetry- based indicators of band topology in the 230 space groups, Nature Communications8, 50 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Bradlyn, L

    B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Topological quantum chemistry, Nature547, 298 (2017). 12

    2017

  7. [7]

    Bradlyn, J

    B. Bradlyn, J. Cano, Z. Wang, M. Vergniory, C. Felser, R. J. Cava, and B. A. Bernevig, Beyond Dirac and Weyl fermions: Unconventional quasiparticles in conventional crystals, Science353, aaf5037 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    B. J. Wieder, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, J. Cano, Y. Kim, H.- S. D. Kim, A. M. Rappe, C. Kane, and B. A. Bernevig, Wallpaper fermions and the nonsymmorphic Dirac insu- lator, Science361, 246 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Hwang, Y

    Y. Hwang, Y. Qian, J. Kang, J. Lee, D. Ryu, H. C. Choi, and B.-J. Yang, Magnetic wallpaper Dirac fermions and topological magnetic Dirac insulators, npj Compu- tational Materials9, 65 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    H. C. Po, H. Watanabe, and A. Vishwanath, Fragile topology and Wannier obstructions, Physical Review Let- ters121, 126402 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    J. Cano, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, L. Elcoro, M. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Topology of disconnected elementary band representations, Physical Review Letters120, 266401 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Bradlyn, Z

    B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, J. Cano, and B. A. Bernevig, Dis- connected elementary band representations, fragile topol- ogy, and Wilson loops as topological indices: An example on the triangular lattice, Physical Review B99, 045140 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Bouhon, A

    A. Bouhon, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and R.-J. Slager, Wil- son loop approach to fragile topology of split elemen- tary band representations and topological crystalline in- sulators with time-reversal symmetry, Physical Review B 100, 195135 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    S. H. Kooi, G. Van Miert, and C. Ortix, Classification of crystalline insulators without symmetry indicators: Atomic and fragile topological phases in twofold rota- tion symmetric systems, Physical Review B100, 115160 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Bouhon, T

    A. Bouhon, T. Bzduˇ sek, and R.-J. Slager, Geometric ap- proach to fragile topology beyond symmetry indicators, Physical Review B102, 115135 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    P. W. Brouwer and V. Dwivedi, Homotopic classifica- tion of band structures: Stable, fragile, delicate, and sta- ble representation-protected topology, Physical Review B 108, 155137 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Z. Song, Z. Wang, W. Shi, G. Li, C. Fang, and B. A. Bernevig, All magic angles in twisted bilayer graphene are topological, Physical Review Letters123, 036401 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, T. Senthil, and A. Vishwanath, Faithful tight-binding models and fragile topology of magic-angle bilayer graphene, Physical Review B99, 195455 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    J. Ahn, S. Park, and B.-J. Yang, Failure of Nielsen- Ninomiya theorem and fragile topology in two- dimensional systems with space-time inversion symme- try: Application to twisted bilayer graphene at magic angle, Physical Review X9, 021013 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    M. G. Vergniory, B. J. Wieder, L. Elcoro, S. S. Parkin, C. Felser, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, All topolog- ical bands of all nonmagnetic stoichiometric materials, Science376, eabg9094 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    C. S. Chiu, D.-S. Ma, Z.-D. Song, B. A. Bernevig, and A. A. Houck, Fragile topology in line-graph lattices with two, three, or four gapped flat bands, Physical Review Research2, 043414 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Zhang and Z.-C

    R.-X. Zhang and Z.-C. Yang, Tunable fragile topology in floquet systems, Physical Review B103, L121115 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Peri, Z.-D

    V. Peri, Z.-D. Song, M. Serra-Garcia, P. Engeler, R. Queiroz, X. Huang, W. Deng, Z. Liu, B. A. Bernevig, and S. D. Huber, Experimental characterization of fragile topology in an acoustic metamaterial, Science367, 797 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    S. Bird, C. Devescovi, P. Engeler, A. Valenti, D. E. G¨ okmen, R. Worreby, V. Peri, and S. D. Huber, Design and characterization of all 2D fragile topological bands, PNAS nexus4, pgaf285 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    M. B. De Paz, M. G. Vergniory, D. Bercioux, A. Garc ´ ıa- Etxarri, and B. Bradlyn, Engineering fragile topology in photonic crystals: Topological quantum chemistry of light, Physical Review Research1, 032005 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Alexandradinata, J

    A. Alexandradinata, J. H¨ oller, C. Wang, H. Cheng, and L. Lu, Crystallographic splitting theorem for band repre- sentations and fragile topological photonic crystals, Phys- ical Review B102, 115117 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    J. L. Ma˜ nes, Fragile phonon topology on the honeycomb lattice with time-reversal symmetry, Physical Review B 102, 024307 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    S. Park, Y. Hwang, H. C. Choi, and B.-J. Yang, Topo- logical acoustic triple point, Nature Communications12, 6781 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    B. J. Wieder and B. A. Bernevig, The axion insu- lator as a pump of fragile topology, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02373 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    B. J. Wieder, Z. Wang, J. Cano, X. Dai, L. M. Schoop, B. Bradlyn, and B. A. Bernevig, Strong and fragile topo- logical Dirac semimetals with higher-order Fermi arcs, Nature Communications11, 627 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Kobayashi and A

    S. Kobayashi and A. Furusaki, Fragile topological insula- tors protected by rotation symmetry without spin-orbit coupling, Physical Review B104, 195114 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    D. V. Else, H. C. Po, and H. Watanabe, Fragile topologi- cal phases in interacting systems, Physical Review B99, 125122 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Latimer and C

    K. Latimer and C. Wang, Correlated fragile topology: A parton approach, Physical Review B103, 045128 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, B

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, B. A. Bernevig, and Z.-D. Song, Interacting topological quantum chemistry in 2D with many-body real space invariants, Nature Communica- tions15, 1171 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Hwang, J

    Y. Hwang, J. Ahn, and B.-J. Yang, Fragile topology pro- tected by inversion symmetry: Diagnosis, bulk-boundary correspondence, and Wilson loop, Physical Review B 100, 205126 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Z.-D. Song, L. Elcoro, and B. A. Bernevig, Twisted bulk-boundary correspondence of fragile topology, Sci- ence367, 794 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    S. Liu, A. Vishwanath, and E. Khalaf, Shift insu- lators: Rotation-protected two-dimensional topological crystalline insulators, Physical Review X9, 031003 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, Z.-D

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Hofstadter topology: noncrystalline topologi- cal materials at high flux, Physical Review Letters125, 236804 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    B. Lian, F. Xie, and B. A. Bernevig, Landau level of fragile topology, Physical Review B102, 041402 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Y. Guan, A. Bouhon, and O. V. Yazyev, Landau levels of the Euler class topology, Physical Review Research4, 023188 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    W. J. Jankowski, A. S. Morris, A. Bouhon, F. N. ¨Unal, and R.-J. Slager, Optical manifestations and bounds of 13 topological Euler class, Physical Review B111, L081103 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    F. Xie, Z. Song, B. Lian, and B. A. Bernevig, Topology- bounded superfluid weight in twisted bilayer graphene, Physical Review Letters124, 167002 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Peri, Z.-D

    V. Peri, Z.-D. Song, B. A. Bernevig, and S. D. Hu- ber, Fragile topology and flat-band superconductivity in the strong-coupling regime, Physical Review Letters126, 027002 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, V

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, V. Peri, F. Schindler, S. D. Hu- ber, and B. A. Bernevig, Superfluid weight bounds from symmetry and quantum geometry in flat bands, Physical Review Letters128, 087002 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Hwang, J.-W

    Y. Hwang, J.-W. Rhim, and B.-J. Yang, Geometric char- acterization of anomalous Landau levels of isolated flat bands, Nature Communications12, 6433 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Q. Wu, J. Liu, Y. Guan, and O. V. Yazyev, Landau levels as a probe for band topology in graphene moir´ e super- lattices, Physical Review Letters126, 056401 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Herzog-Arbeitman, Z.-D

    J. Herzog-Arbeitman, Z.-D. Song, L. Elcoro, and B. A. Bernevig, Hofstadter topology with real space invariants and reentrant projective symmetries, Physical Review Letters130, 236601 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    T. Li, P. Zhu, W. A. Benalcazar, and T. L. Hughes, Fractional disclination charge in two-dimensionalC n- symmetric topological crystalline insulators, Physical Re- view B101, 115115 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Zhang, N

    Y. Zhang, N. Manjunath, G. Nambiar, and M. Barkeshli, Fractional disclination charge and discrete shift in the Hofstadter butterfly, Physical Review Letters129, 275301 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Manjunath, V

    N. Manjunath, V. Calvera, and M. Barkeshli, Char- acterization and classification of interacting (2+1)- dimensional topological crystalline insulators with orientation-preserving wallpaper groups, Physical Re- view B109, 035168 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Hwang, V

    Y. Hwang, V. Gupta, F. Schindler, L. Elcoro, Z. Song, B. A. Bernevig, and B. Bradlyn, Stable real-space invari- ants and topology beyond symmetry indicators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09697 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Z. Song, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, (d−2)-dimensional edge states of rotation symmetry protected topological states, Physical Review Letters119, 246402 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, Quantized electric multipole insulators, Science357, 61 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    W. A. Benalcazar, T. Li, and T. L. Hughes, Quantization of fractional corner charge inC n-symmetric higher-order topological crystalline insulators, Physical Review B99, 245151 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Schindler, M

    F. Schindler, M. Brzezi´ nska, W. A. Benalcazar, M. Iraola, A. Bouhon, S. S. Tsirkin, M. G. Vergniory, and T. Neu- pert, Fractional corner charges in spin-orbit coupled crys- tals, Physical Review Research1, 033074 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    E. Lee, A. Furusaki, and B.-J. Yang, Fractional charge bound to a vortex in two-dimensional topological crys- talline insulators, Physical Review B101, 241109 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Zhang, and S. Murakami, General cor- ner charge formula in two-dimensionalC n-symmetric higher-order topological insulators, Physical Review B 103, 205123 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Rao and B

    P. Rao and B. Bradlyn, Effective action approach to the filling anomaly in crystalline topological matter, Physical Review B107, 195153 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    Velury, Y

    S. Velury, Y. Hwang, and T. L. Hughes, Global and lo- cal topological crystalline markers for rotation-symmetric insulators, Physical Review B112, 094204 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Z.-D. Song, L. Elcoro, Y.-F. Xu, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Fragile phases as affine monoids: Classification and material examples, Physical Review X10, 031001 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Lu,P T-symmetric real Dirac fermions and semimetals, Physical Review Letters118, 056401 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    J. Ahn, D. Kim, Y. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Band topology and linking structure of nodal line semimetals withZ 2 monopole charges, Physical Review Letters121, 106403 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Topological insulators with inver- sion symmetry, Physical Review B76, 045302 (2007)

    2007

  64. [64]

    Watanabe, H

    H. Watanabe, H. C. Po, and A. Vishwanath, Structure and topology of band structures in the 1651 magnetic space groups, Science Advances4, eaat8685 (2018)

    2018

  65. [65]

    Khalaf, H

    E. Khalaf, H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and H. Watan- abe, Symmetry indicators and anomalous surface states of topological crystalline insulators, Physical Review X 8, 031070 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    Z. Song, T. Zhang, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, Quantitative mappings between symmetry and topology in solids, Na- ture Communications9, 3530 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    J. Cano, L. Elcoro, M. Aroyo, B. A. Bernevig, and B. Bradlyn, Topology invisible to eigenvalues in ob- structed atomic insulators, Physical Review B105, 125115 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    See the Supplemental Material for details on the pseu- doinverse method, supercell constructions, the tight- binding model, and a representative nonminimal enlarge- ment example

  69. [69]

    Huang, H

    S.-J. Huang, H. Song, Y.-P. Huang, and M. Her- mele, Building crystalline topological phases from lower- dimensional states, Physical Review B96, 205106 (2017)

    2017

  70. [70]

    Van Miert and C

    G. Van Miert and C. Ortix, Higher-order topological in- sulators protected by inversion and rotoinversion symme- tries, Physical Review B98, 081110 (2018)

    2018

  71. [71]

    Y. Xu, L. Elcoro, G. Li, Z.-D. Song, N. Regnault, Q. Yang, Y. Sun, S. Parkin, C. Felser, and B. A. Bernevig, Three-dimensional real space invariants, ob- structed atomic insulators and a new principle for active catalytic sites, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02433 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    R. Yu, X. L. Qi, A. Bernevig, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Equiv- alent expression ofZ 2 topological invariant for band insu- lators using the non-Abelian Berry connection, Physical Review B84, 075119 (2011)

    2011

  73. [73]

    Fidkowski, T

    L. Fidkowski, T. Jackson, and I. Klich, Model charac- terization of gapless edge modes of topological insulators using intermediate Brillouin-zone functions, Physical Re- view Letters107, 036601 (2011)

    2011

  74. [74]

    Alexandradinata, X

    A. Alexandradinata, X. Dai, and B. A. Bernevig, Wilson- loop characterization of inversion-symmetric topological insulators, Physical Review B89, 155114 (2014)

    2014

  75. [75]

    Bruns and J

    W. Bruns and J. Gubeladze,Polytopes, rings, and K- theory(Springer New York, NY, 2009)

    2009

  76. [76]

    Bruns and B

    W. Bruns and B. Ichim, Normaliz: Algorithms for affine monoids and rational cones, Journal of Algebra324, 1098 (2010)

    2010

  77. [77]

    Christensen, H

    T. Christensen, H. C. Po, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Location and topology of the fundamental gap in photonic crystals, Physical Review X12, 021066 14 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    Hwang, V

    Y. Hwang, V. Gupta, A. Morales-P´ erez, C. Devescovi, M. Garc ´ ıa-D ´ ıez, J. L. Ma˜ nes, M. G. Vergniory, A. Garc ´ ıa- Etxarri, and B. Bradlyn, Building blocks of topologi- cal band theory for photonic crystals, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.06293 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    M. I. Aroyo, J. M. Perez-Mato, C. Capillas, E. Kroumova, S. Ivantchev, G. Madariaga, A. Kirov, and H. Won- dratschek, Bilbao Crystallographic Server: I. Databases and crystallographic computing programs, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie-Crystalline Materials221, 15 (2006)

    2006

  80. [80]

    M. I. Aroyo, A. Kirov, C. Capillas, J. Perez-Mato, and H. Wondratschek, Bilbao Crystallographic Server. II. Representations of crystallographic point groups and space groups, Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foun- dations of Crystallography62, 115 (2006)

    2006

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.