3D Topologically Polarized Elastic Metamaterials Enable Asymmetric Energy Isolation at Low Frequencies

Di Zhou; Fangyuan Ma; Feng Li; Shaoyuan Zhang; Xuejian Gong; Ying Wu; Yugui Yao; Zheng Tang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

3D Topologically Polarized Elastic Metamaterials Enable Asymmetric Energy Isolation at Low Frequencies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A 3D-printed elastic metamaterial with topologically polarized soft modes confines low-frequency vibrations to one boundary while letting the opposite boundary transmit them, establishing omnidirectional asymmetric energy isolation.

desk verdict First experimental 3D topological elastic metamaterial with finite-frequency polarized modes; strong evidence, but the bending-to-NNN link and 'omnidirectional' wording need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16588 v1 pith:WE4WXXHR submitted 2026-07-18 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shaoyuan Zhang , Xuejian Gong , Fangyuan Ma , Zheng Tang , Ying Wu , Di Zhou , Feng Li , Yugui Yao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords topologicalmechanicselasticmetamaterialspyrochlorelatticeisostaticitybendingstiffnesspolarizationasymmetricenergyisolationlow-frequencyphononics

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

The paper demonstrates that the zero-frequency topological modes of an isostatic pyrochlore lattice can be raised into a low-frequency phononic band while staying polarized to a single boundary, and that this survives in a real 3D-printed structure with finite-thickness hinges. The authors show that bending stiffness, modelled as next-nearest-neighbour springs and realized by 1.5-mm hinges, turns the flat zero-energy modes into dispersive surface waves localized on one face only. The result is a quasi-static stiffness contrast of roughly a factor of four between the soft and rigid boundaries and, in the 0.3–1.3 kHz window, a kinetic-energy ratio that is asymmetric under excitation at the two faces: energy injected at the soft face stays there, while energy injected at the rigid face routes through the bulk to the opposite side. The authors argue this is topological—protected by a gap in the mechanical band structure—rather than an ordinary Rayleigh-like surface effect, and that it works for forces at normal, in-plane, and 45° angles. If correct, this gives a three-dimensional architecture for low-frequency vibration shielding and directional wave control that does not rely on a substrate or on fragile zero-frequency modes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized pyrochlore lattice at the isostatic point—one mass site per corner of a tetrahedron, twelve Hookean springs per unit cell, exactly balancing the twelve translational degrees of freedom. The topological phase is encoded in integer winding numbers of the compatibility matrix taken along closed loops in reciprocal space; these winding numbers are summed into a Bloch polarization vector R_T. Adding next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) bonds with stiffness k' = 6.5 × 10^-3 k (k being the nearest-neighbor stiffness) mimics the bending stiffness of the finite-thickness printed hinges, and this is what lifts the zero-frequency boundary modes into finite-frequency surface

What would settle it

Calculate the full 3D phonon band structure of the spring-mass model with the fitted NNN stiffness and check for any wavevector where the lowest bulk band touches the surface-mode band (a Weyl line or gap closing); if such a degeneracy occurs at a generic wavevector, the boundary localization is not topologically protected. A complementary experiment: print a second lattice with thicker hinges (larger d) and verify that the ~4x stiffness contrast and the kinetic-energy asymmetry disappear as bending stiffness grows, which the paper itself predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that topological polarization is not erased by moving away from exact isostaticity. In the deformed pyrochlore lattice, the isostatic point (four sites, twelve springs) hosts three zero-frequency modes per supercell when open boundaries release exactly three constraints. Introducing bending stiffness—through next-nearest-neighbor bonds in the model and through finite-diameter hinges in the print—shifts those modes to finite frequencies with nonzero group velocity, while the polarization vector R_T = −a1 − a2 − 2a3 keeps them localized at one boundary. Static loading gives a fourfold stiffness ratio between the two opposite surfaces, and dynamic excitation in the 0.3–

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction relies on the claim that the next-nearest-neighbor bonds added to the spring model (stiffness 6.5e2 N/m, chosen to fit experiment) faithfully capture the bending stiffness of the printed hinges while preserving the topological band gap and the polarization vector; if that mapping is wrong—for instance if the NNN addition closes the gap or creates Weyl lines somewhere in the Brillouin zone—the observed soft-boundary modes would be ordinary Rayleigh-like

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 3D lattice can be designed so that its topological polarization vector points to a chosen surface, making that surface soft and the opposite one rigid; here a ~4x static stiffness contrast is measured.
In the 0.3–1.3 kHz range, vibrations excited at the soft surface remain boundary-localized, whereas the same excitation at the rigid surface propagates through the bulk and emerges at the soft surface—an asymmetric energy-isolation ratio.
The asymmetry persists for excitation forces at normal, in-plane (two orthogonal directions), and 45° angles, so the effect is omnidirectional rather than tied to a single loading axis.
Because the topological surface modes sit below the bulk acoustic bands, the device achieves isolation in a low-frequency window whose lower edge is set by the sample's finite size, not by a substrate or sub-gap conduction band.
The softening, localization, and asymmetry all weaken as bending stiffness increases, meaning the effect lives in the near-isostatic regime where the lattice is just barely above the balance point.

Reading between the lines

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

A sharper test of topological origin would be to tune the NNN stiffness k' toward zero in the model: if the finite-frequency surface branches descend continuously to the zero-frequency flat bands, that continuity is the smoking gun tying the dynamic modes to the static topological modes.
The polarization vector R_T = −a1 − a2 − 2a3 selects a specific surface; by choosing a different deformed-pyrochlore geometry or by rotating the lattice, one could program which physical face is soft, which could enable curved or multi-face vibration-isolation panels.
Frequency scaling suggests a straightforward route to higher-frequency operation: shrink the lattice constant ℓ (here 24 mm) while keeping the hinge aspect ratio, which should push both the 0.3 kHz lower bound (finite-size penetration) and the 1.3 kHz upper bound (maximum edge-mode frequency) upward.
The observed hysteresis comes from the viscoelastic resin; printing the same geometry in a metal or ceramic would separate material damping from the topological mechanism and test whether the stiffness contrast and energy isolation persist in a lower-loss version.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's what I would tell you about this paper, off the record.

The headline: the first experimental realization of a 3D topologically polarized elastic metamaterial with finite-frequency surface modes, and the evidence for the asymmetry is strong. The topological polarization vector is computed from the lattice geometry, not from the fitted spring parameters, so the central claim is not circular. The static force-displacement measurements show a 4x stiffness contrast between the two surfaces, and the dynamic measurements in the 0.3–1.3 kHz window show that excitation at the soft surface stays localized there while excitation at the rigid surface transmits through. The frequency window is explained by the finite-size lower bound and the edge-mode cutoff. The experiments are careful, and the FEM simulations of the actual printed geometry match the measured band structures and the mode shapes. Codes and data are released.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The biggest one is the mapping from the bending stiffness of the printed hinges to next-nearest-neighbor springs. That is asserted in one sentence and deferred to a supplementary figure, and the NNN stiffness is fitted to the data. A skeptic could argue that the fitted spring model cannot independently confirm the topological phase of the physical structure. This is a real concern, but it is not fatal, because the FEM simulation of the continuum geometry—which has no fitted parameters—reproduces the same three boundary modes in the same gap. So the spring model is corroborated rather than load-bearing. Still, the paper should verify explicitly that the continuum band structure has no Weyl lines or gap closings, and better justify the bending-NNN equivalence.

Second, the word 'omnidirectional' is overused. The dynamic asymmetry is shown for a normal force, two in-plane forces, and a 45-degree oblique force, all at the center of the surface. That's anisotropic sampling, not 'all spatial dimensions.' Tone the claim down.

Third, the experimental curves in Figs. 3 and 4 lack error bars, which makes it hard to judge the significance of the small discrepancies. Minor.

Overall, the core claim is plausible and the evidence is good enough that this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. I'd want the authors to tighten the NNN-bending argument and the omnidirectional claim before publication, but I would not block it on those. I'd cite it if I were working on topological mechanics. For a reading group, it's a good example of how to combine theory, simulation, and experiment in this area, with the caveats above.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a three-dimensional elastic metamaterial based on a deformed pyrochlore lattice. The ideal lattice is isostatic, with three zero-frequency topological boundary modes per supercell; the authors add next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) springs to mimic the bending stiffness of the printed finite-thickness hinges, thereby lifting these modes to finite frequencies. Static force-displacement measurements show a roughly four-fold stiffness contrast between the 'soft' and 'rigid' open boundaries, and dynamic measurements in the 0.3–1.3 kHz range show asymmetric kinetic-energy ratios depending on which boundary is excited. Band structures and field maps are provided from experiment, from a fitted spring-mass model, and from COMSOL finite-element simulations. The paper interprets the asymmetric boundary response as a manifestation of bulk topological polarization of the isostatic pyrochlore lattice.

Significance. The work is among the first experimental demonstrations of three-dimensional topological polarized elasticity and addresses an obvious gap in the field. The direct measurements—static stiffness contrast, boundary band structures, kinetic-energy ratios, and excitation-orientation dependence—are substantial and would be of interest to the topological-mechanics community. The claim is supported by several complementary techniques (experiment, fitted spring-mass model, FEM), and the authors provide open MATLAB code and data at Zenodo. The topological polarization vector is determined from lattice geometry, not from fitted mechanical parameters, so the central 'topological' claim is not circular in the narrow sense. However, the finite-frequency topological protection of the actual printed structure rests on the assumed equivalence between bending and NNN springs, and on the unverified absence of Weyl lines in the spectrum of the NNN/continuum model. If that missing invariant/Weyl-line check is supplied, the significance of the paper would be high; as it stands, the conclusion is plausible but not fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)

[Results, 'Theoretically, we introduce next-nearest-neighbor' (p. 6)] The bending-NNN equivalence is load-bearing: it converts the measured response of a continuum hinge structure into a topological statement about the isostatic pyrochlore. In the main text the equivalence is only asserted via Fig. S2, and the NNN stiffness k' is 'chosen to fit the experimental data'; no derivation or convergence check is given. More importantly, the winding numbers and polarization vector R_T quoted in the preceding section are defined from the isostatic compatibility matrix C(q) without NNN bonds. The paper does not compute this—or any other—invariant for the NNN-modified dynamic matrix or for the continuum FEM model. The robustness condition stated on p. 5—'as long as the phononic bandgap remains open ... contains no Weyl lines'—is not verified over the full 3D Brillouin zone for either the NNN model or the d=1.5 mm hinge geometry, so gap-protected edge-bulk corresponde
[Fig. 1(C)-(F) and paragraph 'These three topological soft modes arise from network connectivity' (p. 6-7)] The multiplicity argument ('three constraints are released during the transition from periodic to open boundary conditions') is exact only at the isostatic point. After adding NNN bending the network is super-isostatic; the zero-mode count is no longer protected by the Maxwell-Calladine index, and the three finite-frequency branches could in principle hybridize with bulk modes or split as k' grows. The paper does not track the modes as a function of k'/hinge diameter, nor does it compare eigenvector overlap with the nullspace of the ideal compatibility matrix. The statement that these modes 'arise from network connectivity' is therefore an assertion, not a demonstrated property of the super-isostatic model. Please include an eigenvalue-flow plot and mode-overlap analysis for k' between 0 and the fitted value, and likewise for hinge diameter d in the FEM model.
[Fig. 3 and 'This contrasts sharply with conventional Rayleigh waves' (p. 7)] The brief comparison with Rayleigh waves is not sufficient to establish topological protection. A structured elastic slab with free surfaces and fixed lateral boundaries can support several surface-guided branches below the lowest bulk continuum; three branches below the continuum are not by themselves a topological fingerprint. The paper does not show that the surface branches carry the nontrivial winding/polarization expected from the ideal lattice, or that their number is pinned by an invariant. This concern is largely a consequence of the missing invariant computation described in the first major comment; supplying that computation would also allow a sharper discussion of why the observed branches are not ordinary Rayleigh-Love guided modes.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1 caption and main text] The notation for spring constants is inconsistent: in Fig. 1(A) and (D) the values for k and k' appear as placeholder symbols ('?' and '?'). Please replace them with explicit k and k' values throughout the caption and text.
[Eq. for R(ω) (p. 12)] The metric is defined as a ratio of mean squared velocities averaged over the measuring surface, not literal kinetic energy. Since masses per measuring point may differ between boundaries and between surface and interior sites, please either state the equal-mass assumption or rename the metric 'mean squared velocity ratio' throughout.
[Data availability (p. 16)] The sentence 'This study did not generate new materials' is confusing in a metamaterials paper. Please clarify that no chemical/biological materials were generated, while CAD/STL files, measurement data, and MATLAB codes are available at the Zenodo link.
[Fig. 3(A,B) and 'excellent agreement'] Because all spring-mass parameters were fitted to the experimental data, the 'agreement' of the black numerical curves with the measured bands is consistency with a fitted model, not an independent prediction. Please qualify this wording and consider reporting parameter uncertainties or showing an unfitted FEM calculation using nominal material properties.
[References and Supplementary citations] A few reference entries appear incomplete or misformatted (e.g., [28], [45]); also, Fig. S2 is cited in the main text but its content is not described. Please add a one-sentence description of the beam-discretization used to justify the bending-NNN equivalence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Core zero-frequency polarization is geometry-based and not circular; finite-frequency 'predictions' are partly calibrated to the same experimental data.

fitted input called prediction [Results, paragraph introducing NNN bonds (Fig. 1D) and Fig. 4(A)]
"Theoretically, we introduce next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) bonds into the deformed pyrochlore lattice ... with a spring stiffness of ? = 6.5 × 10−3?, where ? is the stiffness of the NN bonds. All parameters in the spring-mass model are chosen to fit the experimental data."

The NNN stiffness k' is the parameter that lifts the zero-frequency topological modes into the finite-frequency window and sets the edge-mode dispersion used throughout the paper. Since k' was explicitly chosen to fit the experimental data, the subsequent 'theoretical predictions' (Fig. 4A dashed lines) and the 'numerical results that exhibit excellent agreement' (Fig. 3) for the same 0.3-1.3 kHz window are consistency checks of the fitted model, not independent confirmations that the observed boundary modes are topological. The zero-frequency polarization direction is not affected by this fit, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The zero-frequency topological sector is not circular: the winding numbers and polarization vector are computed from the compatibility matrix of the deformed pyrochlore geometry, and the prediction that the bottom surface is soft is independent of the fitted masses, springs, and NNN stiffness. The printed sample follows that geometry, so the observed soft/rigid boundary contrast (Fig. 2) is a genuine test of the polarization direction. The circularity concern is confined to the finite-frequency extension. The NNN spring constant k' is explicitly 'chosen to fit the experimental data,' and the same spring-mass model is used to generate the 'theoretical predictions' of the kinetic-energy ratio and the analytic/numerical band structure. Thus agreement in the 0.3-1.3 kHz window largely confirms the calibration, not the topological mechanism. The paper also asserts robustness 'as long as the phononic bandgap remains open (i.e., the mechanical spectrum contains no Weyl lines)' but never computes the winding numbers or gap topology of the actual continuum hinge structure; it relies on the fitted NNN model to stand in for the bending continuum. These issues raise the score to 3 but do not make the central polarization claim circular, because its direction is fixed by geometry and confirmed by the static measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are mechanical constants fitted to experiment plus hand-chosen lattice coordinates used to set the topology. The axioms are the standard topological-mechanics framework and the two key modeling assumptions (bending-NNN equivalence and preservation of the gap).

free parameters (4)

mass m = 2.3 g
Chosen to fit experimental data; sets the frequency scale of the spring-mass model.
NN spring stiffness k = 1e5 N/m
Fitted to match the experimental band structure; central to the quantitative mode frequencies.
NNN spring stiffness k' = 6.5e2 N/m
Emulates bending stiffness; fitted so that the topological modes appear at the experimentally observed finite frequencies.
Node coordinates A, B, C, D = A=(0.5530,0.5159,0), B=(0.0029,0.5000,0.5530), C=(0.4470,0.1000,0.4470), D=(-0.0954,-0.1000,0.0636) ℓ
Chosen by hand to realize the topological polarization vector R_T = n1 b1 - n2 b2 - 2 n3 b3; the gap and polarization depend on this geometry.

assumptions (4)

standard math The compatibility-matrix/winding-number formalism from topological band theory correctly describes the mechanical response of this elastic lattice.
Invoked for the winding numbers and polarization vector in the Results section (paragraph beginning 'From C(q), one defines...').
domain assumption The ideal pyrochlore lattice at the isostatic point has 12 constraints balancing 12 degrees of freedom, yielding exactly three zero modes per supercell under open boundary.
Stated in the Results section: 'in the pyrochlore structure, 12 constraints are imposed on the unit cell, exactly balancing its 4×3=12 degrees of freedom and yielding an isostatic lattice.'
ad hoc to paper Bending stiffness of a thin ligament can be represented by NNN springs in the linear-elastic regime, and adding these NNN bonds does not close the topological gap.
The equivalence is asserted: 'bending can be expressed as the differential displacement across three adjacent points — effectively introducing next-nearest-neighbor interactions (see Fig. S2)'; the full-gap preservation is not shown in the main text.
domain assumption The 3D-printed sample faithfully realizes the designed lattice geometry and material properties without unintended distortions that would change the polarization.
The experimental realization is assumed ideal; the paper does not characterize printing tolerances or hinge-shape effects on the topological invariant.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Topologically Polarized Elastic Metamaterials Enable Asymmetric Energy Isolation at Low Frequencies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WE4WXXHR

@misc{pith2026260716588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Topologically Polarized Elastic Metamaterials Enable Asymmetric Energy Isolation at Low Frequencies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WE4WXXHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16588}
}

read the original abstract

Topologically polarized elasticity has been extensively studied in lower-dimensions, yet its three-dimensional (3D) counterpart remains largely unexplored. Here, we demonstrate omnidirectional topological elasticity in 3D structures that incorporate bending stiffness, which elevates zero-frequency topological mechanical states into finite-frequency phononic modes. These modes are localized at a single boundary, creating a pronounced stiffness contrast in both static and finite-frequency dynamic regimes. This three-dimensional structure exhibits highly polarized mechanical behavior across all spatial dimensions, establishing omnidirectional asymmetric topological elasticity. Experimental and numerical results confirm robust, asymmetric energy isolation, arising from the interplay between bulk topological polarization and boundary-localized surface modes. Our findings establish a paradigm for 3D metamaterials, with promising applications in vibration shielding and directional wave manipulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references

[1]

X.-L.QiandS.-C.Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83,1057(2011)

2011
[2]

D.Xiao,M.-C.Chang,andQ.Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82,1959(2010)

1959
[3]

W.A.Benalcazar,B.A.Bernevig,andT.L.Hughes, Science 357,61(2017)

2017
[4]

J.H.Oh,S.Qi,Y.Y.Kim,andB.Assouar, Physical Review Applied 8,054034(2017)

2017
[5]

Z. Meng, M. Liu, Y. Zhang, and C. Q. Chen, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 144, 104095(2020)

2020
[6]

Y.Long,J.Ren,andH.Chen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115,9951(2018)

2018
[7]

Cheng, K

W. Cheng, K. Qian, N. Cheng, N. Boechler, X. Mao, and K. Sun, Nature Communications 16, 2373 (2025)

2025
[8]

S.Li,P.G.Kevrekidis,andJ.Yang, Phys. Rev. B 109,184109(2024)

2024

Show all 49 references

[9]

Huang, J

J. Huang, J. Zhang, D. Xu, S. Zhang, H. Tong, and N. Xu, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 27,101053(2023)

2023
[10]

W.ZunkerandS.Gonella, Extreme Mechanics Letters 46,101344(2021)

2021
[11]

D.Zhou,L.Zhang,andX.Mao, Physical Review Letters 120,068003(2018)

2018
[12]

Paulose, A

J. Paulose, A. S. Meeussen, and V. Vitelli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 7639(2015)

2015
[13]

Bergne, G

A. Bergne, G. Baardink, E. G. Loukaides, and A. Souslov, Extreme Mechanics Letters 57, 101911 (2022)

2022
[14]

Z.-K.Lin,Y.Wu,B.Jiang,Y.Liu,S.-Q.Wu,F.Li,andJ.-H.Jiang, Nature Materials 21,430(2022)

2022
[15]

M.I.N.Rosa,R.K.Pal,J.R.F.Arruda,andM.Ruzzene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123,034301(2019)

2019
[16]

R.SüsstrunkandS.D.Huber, Science 349,47(2015)

2015
[17]

G.MaandP.Sheng, Science Advances 2,e1501595(2016)

2016
[18]

T.Shah,C.Brendel,V.Peano,andFlorianMarquardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96,021002(2024)

2024
[19]

L.Lu,J.D.Joannopoulos,andMarinSoljačić, Nature Photonics, 8,821(2014). 18

2014
[20]

Z.Liu,P.Jin,M.Lei,C.Wang,F.Marchesoni,J-HJiang,andJipingHuang, Nature Reviews Physics 6,554(2024)

2024
[21]

Lubensky, C

T. Lubensky, C. Kane, X. Mao, A. Souslov, and K. Sun, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 073901 (2015)

2015
[22]

C.KaneandT.Lubensky, Nature Physics 10,39(2014)

2014
[23]

L.Zhang,andX.Mao, New J. Phys. 20.063034(2018)

2018
[24]

D.Zhou,L.ZhangandX.Mao, Phys. Rev. X, 9,021054(2019)

2019
[25]

J.Paulose,B.G.-g.Chen,andV.Vitelli, Nature Physics 11,153(2015)

2015
[26]

F. Ma, Z. Tang, X. Shi, Y. Wu, J. Yang, D. Zhou, Y. Yao, and F. Li, Physical Review Letters 131, 046101(2023)

2023
[27]

J.Ma,D.Zhou,K.Sun,X.Mao,andS.Gonella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121,094301(2018)

2018
[28]

I.TanandA.Souslov, New Journal of Physics 27055002(2025)

2025
[29]

H.Danawe,H.Li,K.Sun,andS.Tol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129,204302(2022)

2022
[30]

Y.Chen,J.P.McInerney,P.N.Krause,J.L.G.Schneider,M.Wegener,andX.Mao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134,086101(2025)

2025
[31]

O.StenullandT.C.Lubensky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122,248002(2019)

2019
[32]

K.SunandX.Mao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124,207601(2020)

2020
[33]

Charara, J

M. Charara, J. McInerney, K. Sun, X. Mao, and S. Gonella, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119,40,e2208051119(2022)

2022
[34]

Z.Tang,F.Ma,F.Li,Y.Yao,andD.Zhou, Physical Review Letters 133,106101(2024)

2024
[35]

L.Kane,andT

O.Stenull,C. L.Kane,andT. C.Lubensky, Physical Review Letters 117,068001(2016)

2016
[36]

K.Bertoldi,V.Vitelli,J.Christensen,andM.VanHecke, Nature Reviews Materials 2,1(2017)

2017
[37]

B. G.-g. Chen, N. Upadhyaya, and V. Vitelli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13004(2014)

2014
[38]

Y.Zhou,Y.Zhang,andC.Chen, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 153,104482(2021)

2021
[39]

J.R.Tempelman,K.H.Matlack,andA.F.Vakakis, Phys. Rev. B 104,174306(2021)

2021
[40]

K.Prabith,G.Theocharis,andR.Chaunsali, Physical Review B 110,104307(2024)

2024
[41]

K.Sone,M.Ezawa,Y.Ashida,N.Yoshioka,andT.Sagawa, Nature Physics 20,1164(2024)

2024
[42]

Scheibner, A

C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Surówka, W. T. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Nature Physics 16, 475(2020)

2020
[43]

C.Scheibner,W.T.Irvine,andV.Vitelli, Physical Review Letters 125,118001(2020)

2020
[44]

Souslov, K

A. Souslov, K. Dasbiswas, M. Fruchart, S. Vaikuntanathan, and V. Vitelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 128001(2019)

2019
[45]

N.Cheng,C.Shu,K.Zhang,X.Mao,andK.Sun, Physical Review Letters 13216401(2024)

2024
[46]

J.-X.Li,S.Wu,L.-L.Hao,Q.-L.Lei,andY.-Q.Ma, Science Advances 10,eadr0716(2024)

2024
[47]

Xie, H.-X

B. Xie, H.-X. Wang, X. Zhang, P. Zhan,J.-H. Jiang, M. Lu,and Y. Chen, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 520(2021)

2021
[48]

T.Frenzel,M.Kadic,andM.Wegener, Science 358,1072(2017)

2017
[49]

C.Qian,E.Stanifer,Z.Ma,L.Yao,B.Luo,C.Liu,J.Li,P. Pan,W. Pan,X.Mao,andQ.Chen, Nat. Mater. 24,1616-1625(2025)

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

X.-L.QiandS.-C.Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83,1057(2011)

2011

[2] [2]

D.Xiao,M.-C.Chang,andQ.Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82,1959(2010)

1959

[3] [3]

W.A.Benalcazar,B.A.Bernevig,andT.L.Hughes, Science 357,61(2017)

2017

[4] [4]

J.H.Oh,S.Qi,Y.Y.Kim,andB.Assouar, Physical Review Applied 8,054034(2017)

2017

[5] [5]

Z. Meng, M. Liu, Y. Zhang, and C. Q. Chen, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 144, 104095(2020)

2020

[6] [6]

Y.Long,J.Ren,andH.Chen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115,9951(2018)

2018

[7] [7]

Cheng, K

W. Cheng, K. Qian, N. Cheng, N. Boechler, X. Mao, and K. Sun, Nature Communications 16, 2373 (2025)

2025

[8] [8]

S.Li,P.G.Kevrekidis,andJ.Yang, Phys. Rev. B 109,184109(2024)

2024