This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Takagi Topological Insulator on the Honeycomb Lattice

Qing Liu National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures and Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China    Kai Wang National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures and Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China    Jia-Xiao Dai National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures and Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China    Y. X. Zhao [email protected] National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructures and Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Advanced Microstructures, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China
Abstract

Recently, real topological phases protected by PTPT symmetry have been actively investigated. In two dimensions, the corresponding topological invariant is the Stiefel-Whitney number. A recent theoretical advance is that in the presence of the sublattice symmetry, the Stiefel-Whitney number can be equivalently formulated in terms of Takagi’s factorization. The topological invariant gives rise to a novel second-order topological insulator with odd PTPT-related pairs of corner zero modes. In this article, we review the elements of this novel second-order topological insulator, and demonstrate the essential physics by a simple model on the honeycomb lattice.

Introduction. The symmetry-protected topological phases, such as topological (crystalline) insulators (TIs) and superconductors (TSCs), have been one of the most active fields of physics during the last fifteen years Volovik (2003); Hasan and Kane (2010); Qi and Zhang (2011); Fu (2011); Chiu et al. (2016); Kruthoff et al. (2017); Benalcazar et al. (2017); Liu et al. (2019); Xie et al. (2021). Based on the topological KK theory, the topological band theory has been established to classify and characterize various topological states Atiyah (1966); Kitaev (2010); Schnyder et al. (2008). Symmetry plays an fundamental role in the classification of topological phases. Considering three discrete symmetries, namely time reversal 𝒯\mathcal{T}, charge conjugation 𝒞\mathcal{C} and chiral symmetry 𝒮\mathcal{S}, physical systems can be classified into ten symmetry classes, termed Altland-Zirnbauer (AZ) classes Altland and Zirnbauer (1997); Kitaev (2010); Hořava (2005); Atiyah (1966); Schnyder et al. (2008); Zhao and Wang (2014), among which the eight ones with at least 𝒯\mathcal{T} or 𝒞\mathcal{C} are called real AZ classes. The topological classifications in the framework of the eight real AZ classes correspond to the real KK theory. Using the real KK theory, gapped systems including topological insulators and topological superconductors were first classified Schnyder et al. (2008); Kitaev (2010); Ryu et al. (2010), and then gapless systems were classified as well Matsuura et al. (2013); Zhao and Wang (2013); Chiu and Schnyder (2014); Shiozaki and Sato (2014). All the classification tables exhibit an elegant eightfold periodicity along the dimensions for the eight real AZ classes.

After internal symmetries like 𝒯\mathcal{T} and 𝒞\mathcal{C}, more and more spatial symmetries were involved to enrich symmetry-protected topological matter. It was noticed that combined symmetries 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒞𝒫\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P} correspond to the orthogonal KK theory with 𝒫\mathcal{P} the spatial inversion, since they leave every kk point fixed in the reciprocal space. Hence, the topological classification table was worked out Zhao et al. (2016). A remarkable feature is that groups \mathbb{Z}, 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} and 0 in the table appear in the reversed order in dimensionality, compared with previous tables for the real AZ classes. 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒞𝒫\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P} are fundamental in nature, and therefore the classification table has been applied to explore topological phases in various physical systems, such as quantum materials Zhao and Lu (2017); Kruthoff et al. (2017); Ahn et al. (2019), topological superconductors Timm et al. (2017); Yu et al. (2021); Tomonaga et al. (2021); Lapp et al. (2020), and photonic/phononic crystals and electric-circuit arrays  Zhang et al. (2013); Yang et al. (2015); Imhof et al. (2018); Ozawa et al. (2019); Ma et al. (2019); Serra-Garcia et al. (2018); Yu et al. (2020); Peterson et al. (2018); Lapp et al. (2020), and can generate unique topological structures with many novel consequences, such as non-Abelian topological charges, cross-order boundary transitions, and nodal-loop linking structures  Zhao and Lu (2017); Yu et al. (2015); Ahn et al. (2019); Sheng et al. (2019); Wu et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2019); Li et al. (2020).

Remarkably, from the classification table, the symmetry class with (𝒫𝒯)2=1(\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T})^{2}=1 corresponds to the 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} classification for d=1d=1 and d=2d=2. As revealed in Ref.Zhao and Lu (2017), (𝒫𝒯)2=1(\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T})^{2}=1 leads to real band structures in contrast to conventional complex band structures. Then, the 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} topological invariant w1w_{1} for d=1d=1 can be formulated as the quantized Berry phase in units of π\pi modulo 2π2\pi. The case of d=2d=2 is much fascinating. The topological invariant is the Euler number, a real version of the Chern number, for two valence bands. The Euler number is valued in \mathbb{Z}, but only its parity is stable if more trivial valence bands are added into consideration. The parity, namely the Euler number modulo 22, is just the Stiefel-Whitney number w2w_{2} in two dimensions, which determines whether the real vector bundle can be lifted into a spinor bundle.

The topological invariant w2w_{2} gives rise to novel topological phases with extraordinary properties. In 33D, it characterizes a real Dirac semimetal, which can be transformed into a nodal ring with symmetry-preserving perturbations. Then, the nodal ring is characterized by two topological charges (w1,w2)(w_{1},w_{2}). In 22D, it describes a topological insulator. The common topological wisdom is that the bulk topological invariant determines a unique form of the boundary modes, namely the well-known one-to-one bulk-boundary correspondence. However, a remarkably discovery in Ref.Wang et al. (2020) is that w2w_{2} corresponds to multiple forms of boundary modes, extending the one-to-one correspondence to one-to-many. The 22D topological insulator can host various second-order phases with odd 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-related pairs of corner zero-modes, which are mediated by first-order phases with helical edge states. Similarly, the 33D semimetal can host second-order hinge Fermi arcs and first-order surface Dirac states as well. Recently, graphynes have been proposed as the material candidates which can realize both the 22D topological insuslator and the 33D topological semimetal Sheng et al. (2019); Chen et al. (2021, 2022).

As aforementioned, the second-order phases of the 22D topological insulator feature odd 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-related pairs of corner zero modes. It is interesting to look for its 33D analog, which has been presented in Ref.Dai et al. (2021). Referring to the topological classification table for 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒞𝒫\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P} symmetries, we notice that although the classification for (𝒫𝒯)2=1(\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T})^{2}=1 is trivial, with an additional chiral symmetry 𝒮\mathcal{S} with {𝒫𝒯,𝒮}=0\{\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T},\mathcal{S}\}=0 the classification is preserved as 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} in 22D and, more importantly, becomes nontrivial as 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} in 33D. It is found that the corresponding topological invariants can be formulated in terms of Takagi’s factorization. The topological invariant in 22D is equivalent to w2w_{2}, while that in 33D is a new topological invariant. Either in 22D or in 33D the bulk topological invariant can be manifested as odd 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-related pairs of corner zero-modes. Now, with the chiral symmetry, the two zero-modes in each pair are eigenstates with opposite eigenvalues of the chiral symmetry.

In this article, we review the elements of 22D 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-protected topological insulators with or without chiral symmetry. The essential physics is demonstrated by the Honeycomb-lattice model, with only the nearest-neighbor hopping amplitudes. We show that under certain dimerization patterns the model is a topological insulator with nontrivial Stiefel-Whitney number or the Takagi topological invariant, and therefore presents all the nontrivial topological phenomena. Particularly, under various 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-invariant geometries, there are always odd 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}-related pairs of corner zero-modes for the second-order topological phase. Before diving into the details, it is noteworthy that the dimerized honeycomb model can be regarded as an abstraction from the graphynes Sheng et al. (2019); Chen et al. (2021, 2022).

The honeycomb-lattice model.

Refer to caption
FIG. 1: (a) Schematic of the honeycomb-lattice model. tit_{i} represents intracell hoppings and tit_{i}^{\prime} represents intercell hoppings with i=1,2,3i=1,2,3. The six atomic sites in a unit cell can be divided into two sublattice, as marked by the gray and brown circles, so that a site in one sublattice has all its nearest neighbors from the other sublattice. (b) The winding of Wilson loop around kyk_{y} for topological nontrivial case. The Wilson loop is computed along a large circle parametrized by kxk_{x} for fixed kyk_{y} (where kx,yk_{x,y} represents periodic direction along a1,a2a_{1},a_{2} or a3a_{3}). The loop exhibits a cross at θ=π\theta=\pi and ky=0k_{y}=0, which means the 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} topological invariant ν=1\nu=1. The parameters are set as t1=t2=t3=1,t1=t2=t3=3t_{1}=t_{2}=t_{3}=1,t_{1}^{\prime}=t_{2}^{\prime}=t_{3}^{\prime}=3.

Let us start with presenting the honeycomb-lattice model, the lattice structure is shown in Fig. 1(a). The Hamiltonian in momentum space is given by

(𝒌)=[0t30χ𝒌(2)0t1t30t20χ¯𝒌(1)00t20t10χ𝒌(3)χ¯𝒌(2)0t10t300χ𝒌(1)0t30t2t10χ¯𝒌(3)0t20],\mathcal{H}(\bm{k})=\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{3}&0&\chi^{(2)}_{\bm{k}}&0&t_{1}\\ t_{3}&0&t_{2}&0&\bar{\chi}^{(1)}_{\bm{k}}&0\\ 0&t_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&\chi^{(3)}_{\bm{k}}\\ \bar{\chi}^{(2)}_{\bm{k}}&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0\\ 0&\chi^{(1)}_{\bm{k}}&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}\\ t_{1}&0&\bar{\chi}^{(3)}_{\bm{k}}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}, (1)

where χ𝒌(i)=tiei𝒌𝒂i\chi^{(i)}_{\bm{k}}=t_{i}^{\prime}e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot\bm{a}_{i}} with i=1,2,3i=1,2,3. Here, 𝒂i\bm{a}_{i} are the bond vectors connecting the centers of nearest-neighbor unit cells, as indicated in Fig.1(a) with i𝒂i=0\sum_{i}\bm{a}_{i}=0. The Hamiltonian has inversion symmetry with 𝒫^=σ1I3I^\hat{\mathcal{P}}=\sigma_{1}\otimes I_{3}\hat{I}, spinless time-reversal symmetry with 𝒯^=𝒦^I^\hat{\mathcal{T}}=\hat{\mathcal{K}}\hat{I}, and therefore spacetime-inversion symmetry with 𝒫^𝒯^=σ1I3𝒦^\hat{\mathcal{P}}\hat{\mathcal{T}}=\sigma_{1}\otimes I_{3}\hat{\mathcal{K}}, where 𝒦^\hat{\mathcal{K}} is the complex conjugation and I^\hat{I} is the inversion of momenta. Note that σ\sigma’s are the Pauli matrices acting on the sublattice space [see Fig.1(a)], and I3I_{3} is the 3×33\times 3 identity matrix. Each inversion center is taken as the center of a hexagon in real space. The sublattice symmetry operator is 𝒮^=I3σ3\hat{\mathcal{S}}=I_{3}\otimes\sigma_{3}. Since the inversion exchanges sublattices, both 𝒫\mathcal{P} and 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} anti-commute with 𝒮\mathcal{S}, namely, {𝒫^,𝒮^}={𝒫^𝒯^,𝒮^}=0\{\hat{\mathcal{P}},\hat{\mathcal{S}}\}=\{\hat{\mathcal{P}}\hat{\mathcal{T}},\hat{\mathcal{S}}\}=0.

To obtain the nontrivial topological phases, we calculate the determinant of the Hamiltonian (1) at Γ\Gamma point Gam in the Brillouin zone as

det[(Γ)]=(t12t1+t22t2+t32t32t1t2t3t1t2t3)2.\mathrm{det}[\mathcal{H}(\Gamma)]=-(t_{1}^{2}t_{1}^{\prime}+t_{2}^{2}t_{2}^{\prime}+t_{3}^{2}t_{3}^{\prime}-2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}-t_{1}^{\prime}t_{2}^{\prime}t_{3}^{\prime})^{2}. (2)

Since the bulk topological criticality generally corresponds gap-closing point, we can obtain the topological phase-transition points by letting det[(Γ)]=0\mathrm{det}[\mathcal{H}(\Gamma)]=0, which gives

t12t1+t22t2+t32t3=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3.t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}. (3)

Interestingly, if (3) holds, the system is generally reduced to a topologically equivalent graphene model with two Dirac points in the first Brillouin zone Haldane (1988). When t12t1+t22t2+t32t3<2t1t2t3+t1t2t3t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}<2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}, the system steps into a topological phase, while conversely the system becomes a trivial phase, which can be checked by computing Stiefel-Whitney number or Takagi’s factorization.

Topological invariants The topology can be determined by various formulas of the topological invariant. We now briefly review them. First, as given in Ref.Zhao and Lu (2017), the topological invariant can be determined by the Wilson loop

𝒲(ky)=Pexp(iCky𝑑kx𝒜(kx,ky)missing)\mathcal{W}(k_{y})=P\exp\bigg(-i\int_{C_{k_{y}}}dk_{x}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \mathcal{A}(k_{x},k_{y})\bigg{missing}) (4)

(with PP indicating the path order) along large circles parametrized by kxk_{x}. CkyC_{k_{y}} is the contour at a fixed kyk_{y} and 𝒜(kx,ky)\mathcal{A}(k_{x},k_{y}) is the non-Abelian Berry connection for the valence bands. The topological information is encoded in the phase factors θ(ky)(π,π]\theta(k_{y})\in\left(-\pi,\pi\right] of the NN eigenvalues λm(ky)\lambda_{m}(k_{y}) of 𝒲(ky)\mathcal{W}(k_{y}) for valence bands:

θm(ky)=Im[logλm(ky)].\theta_{m}(k_{y})=\imaginary[\log\lambda_{m}(k_{y})]. (5)

Different from the conventional TIs and Chern insulators, the Wilson loop spectral flow for real phases are mirror symmetric with respect to the θ=0\theta=0 axis [see Fig. 1(b)]. This is because 𝒲(ky)\mathcal{W}(k_{y}) is equivalent to a mapping from kyS1k_{y}\in S^{1} to O(N)O(N) up to a unitary transformation Zhao and Lu (2017). The topological information can be pictorially derived from counting how many times ζ\zeta the trajectories cross θ=π\theta=\pi as

w2=ζmod2.w_{2}=\zeta\mod 2. (6)

For honeycomb lattice with t12t1+t22t2+t32t3<2t1t2t3+t1t2t3t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}<2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}, a single crossing exsit as shown in Fig.1(b), namely, w2=1w_{2}=1, which indicates the model is in a topological nontrivial phase.

As aforementioned, our system is protected by spacetime inversion symmetry 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and sublattice (chiral) symmetry 𝒮\mathcal{S}. These symmetries constraint the classifying space of (𝒌)\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}) to be symmeric unitary matrices. Thus the 2\mathbb{Z}_{2} invariant from the Takagi’s factorization can be defined Dai et al. (2021), which leads to an alternative formulation for w2w_{2}. We now prove the equivalence of the two formulas. For technical simplicity, we assume the momentum space as a sphere S2S^{2}, which is sufficient to present the essential ideas.

Refer to caption
FIG. 2: The Takagi factors in 22D.

In general, 𝒮\mathcal{S} requires the Hamiltonian (𝒌)\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}) to be block anti-diagonal and 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} requires the upper-right block to be symmetric. Thus the flattened Hamiltonian ~(𝒌)\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\bm{k}) is given by

~(𝒌)=[0𝒬(𝒌)𝒬(𝒌)0],𝒬=𝒬T,𝒬𝒬=IM,\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\bm{k})=\begin{bmatrix}0&\mathcal{Q}(\bm{k})\\ \mathcal{Q}^{\dagger}(\bm{k})&0\end{bmatrix},\leavevmode\nobreak\ \mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q}^{T},\leavevmode\nobreak\ \mathcal{Q}\mathcal{Q}^{\dagger}=I_{M}, (7)

where 𝒬(𝒌)=𝒰(𝒌)𝒰T(𝒌)\mathcal{Q}(\bm{k})=\mathcal{U}(\bm{k})\mathcal{U}^{T}(\bm{k}) is a unitary symmetric matrix for each 𝒌\bm{k} and MM denotes the number of valence (conduction) bands. 𝒰(𝒌)U(M)\mathcal{U}(\bm{k})\in U(M) is the Takagi factor. The classifying space for this symmetric class is US(M)=U(M)/O(M){US}(M)=U(M)/O(M) Dai et al. (2021). Here, π2[US(M)]=2\pi_{2}[{US}(M)]=\mathbb{Z}_{2} corresponds to the topological invariant of our system. Consider a 22D sphere S2S^{2}, which is divided into north and south hemispheres DN,S2D^{2}_{N,S}, overlapping along the equator S1S^{1}. The Takagi factors 𝒰N/S\mathcal{U}_{N/S} over DN/S2D_{N/S}^{2}, respectively, can be transformed to each other by a gauge transformation 𝒪S1\mathcal{O}_{S^{1}} over the equator S1S^{1}, as shown in Fig. 2. 𝒪S1\mathcal{O}_{S^{1}} is given by

𝒪S1=𝒰N|S1𝒰S|S1,𝒪S1O(M).\mathcal{O}_{S^{1}}=\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}_{N}|_{S^{1}}\mathcal{U}_{S}|_{S^{1}},\leavevmode\nobreak\ \mathcal{O}_{S^{1}}\in O(M).

π1[O(M)]=2\pi_{1}[{O}(M)]=\mathbb{Z}_{2} for M>2M>2 leads to obstructions for a global Takagi’s factorization over S2S^{2}.

The conduction and valence wavefunctions of ~(𝒌)\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\bm{k}) can be given by

|+,n=12[𝒰φn𝒰φn],|,n=i2[𝒰φn𝒰φn],|+,n\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}\mathcal{U}\varphi_{n}\\ \ \mathcal{U}^{*}\varphi_{n}\end{bmatrix},\leavevmode\nobreak\ |-,n\rangle=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}\mathcal{U}\varphi_{n}\\ \ -\mathcal{U}^{*}\varphi_{n}\end{bmatrix}, (8)

where n{1,2,,M}n\in\{1,2,\cdots,M\}. φn=(0 0 0 1 0 0 0)T\varphi_{n}=(0\leavevmode\nobreak\ 0\leavevmode\nobreak\ \cdots\leavevmode\nobreak\ 0\leavevmode\nobreak\ 1\leavevmode\nobreak\ 0\leavevmode\nobreak\ 0\leavevmode\nobreak\ \cdots\leavevmode\nobreak\ 0)^{T} is a unit vector with “11” locating at the nn-th position.

Performing a unitary transformation 𝒰R=eiπ/4eiπσ1/4\mathcal{U}_{R}=e^{-i{\pi}/{4}}e^{i{\pi\sigma_{1}}/{4}} on this system, the Hamiltonian and valence wavefunctions both become real. Meanwhile, 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒮\mathcal{S} are transformed to 𝒦^\hat{\mathcal{K}} and σ2\sigma_{2}, respectively. Over the intersection S1S^{1}, transition function tS1t_{S^{1}} of real valence wavefunctions can be given by

[tS1]mn=,m|N|S1𝒰R𝒰R|,nS|S1=[𝒪S1]mn.[t_{S^{1}}]_{mn}=\langle-,m|_{N}\big{|}_{S^{1}}\mathcal{U}_{R}^{\dagger}\mathcal{U}_{R}|-,n\rangle_{S}\big{|}_{S^{1}}=\mathcal{[}\mathcal{O}_{S^{1}}]_{mn}. (9)

Thus, we know the transition function tS1t_{S^{1}} of real valence wavefunctions is equal to the gauge transformation 𝒪S1\mathcal{O}_{S^{1}}. As noted in Ref.Zhao and Lu (2017), w2w_{2} is just the parity of the winding number of the transition function for valence bands. Thus, we see the equivalence of two 22D topological invariants.

Physical consequence. According to analytical and numerical methods, we reveal that three pairs of hopping parameters tit_{i} and tit^{\prime}_{i} (with i=1,2,3i=1,2,3) jointly determine the configuration of topological boundary modes. To facilitate understanding the relation between distinct boundary modes and parameters, we define a boundary effective mass term mim_{i} for each edge:

mi=tititjtkwithijk,m_{i}=t_{i}t^{\prime}_{i}-t_{j}t_{k}\quad\text{with}\quad i\neq j\neq k, (10)

where the subscript ii denotes the hopping along the primitive vector 𝐚i\mathbf{a}_{i} direction (𝐚3=𝐚1𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{3}=-\mathbf{a}_{1}-\mathbf{a}_{2}). The above Eq.(10) can be derived from the boundary effective Hamiltonian Edg . Hence, if mi=0m_{i}=0, the corresponding edges are gapless, which is also the boundary critical condition to separate two second-order topological phases.

Refer to caption
FIG. 3: (a)-(c) Possible topological boundary modes for the rhombic-shaped sample with 10×1010\times 10 unit cells. Black circles indicate the distribution of density of zero-mode (a)(c) Second-order TI phases with a single pair of zero-modes corners in diagonal and off-diagonal (or horizontal and vertical) directions, respectively. (b) Helical edge modes with the boundary effective mass mi=0m_{i}=0, which is a critical state separating two second-order TI phases. Parameters are set as (a) t1,2,3=1,t1,2,3=3t_{1,2,3}=1,t^{\prime}_{1,2,3}=3, (b) t1=1,t2=2,t3=1.5,t1,2,3=3t_{1}=1,t_{2}=2,t_{3}=1.5,t^{\prime}_{1,2,3}=3, (c) t1=1.8,t2=0.2,t3=0.8,t1,2,3=3t_{1}=1.8,t_{2}=0.2,t_{3}=0.8,t^{\prime}_{1,2,3}=3.

To demonstate the boundary modes, we consider a rhombic-shaped 22D sample with armchair termination, i.e., by opening boundary along 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1} and 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2} direction, as shown in Fig. 3. If m1=0m_{1}=0 and m20m_{2}\neq 0, the helical edge modes along periodic 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1} can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 3(b). However, once m1,20m_{1,2}\neq 0, the helical edge modes will be gapped and the localized corner modes will emerge. More specifically, for the case with sgn(m1)=sgn(m2)\mathrm{sgn}(m_{1})=\mathrm{sgn}(m_{2}) (sgn(m1)=sgn(m2)\mathrm{sgn}(m_{1})=-\mathrm{sgn}(m_{2})), the corner modes will locate at 120120^{\circ} (6060^{\circ}) corners, as shown in Fig.3(a) and (c) respectively. The 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} symmetry requires that the corner zero-modes always come in pairs and the chiral symmetry sets the midgap modes exactly at zero energy Fin .

To keep the completeness of honeycomb unit cell in a rhomboid sample, one only has three kinds of armchair edges, namely the edge parallel to 𝐚i\mathbf{a}_{i} direction with i=1,2,3i=1,2,3. If the edge connected by the same corner has the same mass term mim_{i} sign, the corner zero-modes will be localized at the obtuse angle of the rhomboid, otherwise at acute corners. We shall theoretically explain these numerical results in the next section. It is emphasized that in the whole process of the edge-phase transitions, the bulk gap is always open and the symmetries are preserved, therefore, the bulk invariant ν\nu is unchanged. Thus the conventional bulk-boundary correspondence is not appliable for TTI, namely, the bulk invariant can not uniquely determine the boundary modes, but dictates an edge criticality, as the concept mentioned in previous work Wang et al. (2020).

As promised in introduction, we now proceed to tune the boundary modes with fixed parameters. In the rhombic case, all samples terminate with armchair edges and exhibit parameter-depended boundary modes. As long as 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒮\mathcal{S} are not violated, the finite samples can be cut with not only rhomb as shown in Fig. 3, but also hexagon(see Fig.5 ). Beside armchair edges, zigzag edges can serve as termination too. Creatively, with fixed parameters but different boundary selections, one can also find various distinguishable boundary modes. For instance, helical edge states emerge on the zigzag edges in a rectangle sample as shown in Fig. 4(b), with the same hopping parameters as Fig. 4(a). This result further proves that the bulk topological invariant can not uniquely determine the topological boundary modes. We also study lots of other patterns with the same parameters, and abundant topological boundary modes consisting of corner zero modes and gapless edge modes can be obtained (see Appendix. D). They are all boundary-selection-depended. Hence, we propose that one can obtain needed topological boundary modes by choosing particular boundary geometry, without tuning parameters, which is usually difficult to perform in real systems.

Refer to caption
FIG. 4: (a) Topological corner modes in rhombic sample with ti=1,ti=3t_{i}=1,t^{\prime}_{i}=3. (b) Topological edge modes in rectangle sample with same parameters as rhombic(t1,2,3=1,t1,2,3=3t_{1,2,3}=1,t^{\prime}_{1,2,3}=3).

Novelly, in both situations discussed above, for second-order topological phases, the number of the zero-energy corners must be odd pairs. For example, for a hexagonal sample, we can only find one or three pairs of zero-mode corners, as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b). Similarly, the Octagonal sample also has one or three pairs of zero-mode corners as shown in Fig. 5(c) and (d).

Refer to caption
FIG. 5: (a),(d) Orthohexagonal sample with one and three pairs of zero-mode corners respectively. (b),(e) Octagonal sample with one and three pairs of zero-mode corners respectively. (c),(f)hexagonal prisms sample with one and three pairs of corner zero-modes respectively.

We find that the peculiarity of odd-pair-zero-modes is universal and it can be generalized to a higher-dimensional situation, such as 3D Dai et al. (2021). The 3D model is constructed by stacking the 2D honeycomb TTI discussed above in a staggered manner to preserve the sublattice symmetry 𝒮\mathcal{S}. The details of the construction of the model can be found in Appendix. C . The inversion center is chosen as the center of hexagonal in one layer. Thus the anti-commuting relation of 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} and 𝒮\mathcal{S} are preserved. We cut a finite hexagonal prisms sample that keeps the symmetries. One can find only odd pairs (one or three) of corner states related by 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} appear. Note that the corner zero-modes can be driven to other corners by tunning the hopping parameters like in a 2D situation.

Analytic method. We first proceed to solve the boundary criticality along the periodic 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1} direction and openning boundary with 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2}. Replace ei𝒌𝐚𝟐e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a_{2}}} by SS in Hamiltonian (1), with SS ladder operator and S|i=|i+1,S|i=|i1S|i\rangle=|i+1\rangle,S^{\dagger}|i\rangle=|i-1\rangle. Then ei𝒌𝐚3e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{3}} can be represented by ei𝒌𝐚1Se^{i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1}}S^{\dagger} since 𝐚3=(𝐚1+𝐚2)\mathbf{a}_{3}=-(\mathbf{a}_{1}+\mathbf{a}_{2}). After a series of tedious derivation (see Appendix. A), we obtian the effective Hamiltonian of the bottom boundary:

B(𝒌𝐚1)=[0t30t1t30t1ei𝒌𝐚100t1ei𝒌𝐚10t2t10t20].\begin{split}\mathcal{H}_{B}(\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1})=\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{3}&0&t_{1}\\ t_{3}&0&t_{1}^{\prime}e^{i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1}}&0\\ 0&t_{1}^{\prime}e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1}}&0&t_{2}\\ t_{1}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}.\end{split} (11)

Following the same argument with aforementioned bulk criticality, we can obtain the boundary criticality by letting det[B(𝒌𝐚1)]=0\mathrm{det}[\mathcal{H}_{B}(\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1})]=0, which leads to

t1t1t2t3=0.t_{1}t_{1}^{\prime}-t_{2}t_{3}=0. (12)

The above Eq. (12) holds only at 𝒌𝐚1=0\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1}=0. Thus, when the system is in a topological nontrivial case, Eq. (12) related edge criticality separates two different second-order topological phases with corner zero modes. Likely, we can obtain similar results for periodic 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2} and 𝐚3\mathbf{a}_{3} directions. For convenience, we can define boundary effective mass by the left of Eq. (12) for edges parallel to 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1}. Or, generally Eq. (10) for edges parallel to 𝐚i\mathbf{a}_{i}. Different from the armchair edges, the zigzag terminations has an additional boundary criticality, namely, the effective masses can be defined by

Mi=12j,kϵijk(tj2tjtk2tk).M_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j,k}\epsilon_{ijk}(t_{j}^{2}t^{\prime}_{j}-t_{k}^{2}t^{\prime}_{k}). (13)

The derived details can be found in the Appendix. B.

With the effective mass orderly distributing on each edge Edg , the existence of corner zero-modes is reduced to a Jackiw-Rebbi problem Jackiw and Rebbi (1976). The corners with opposite effective masses on both sides can have zero-modes.

Discussion. In this article, we present a simple 2D realizable honeycomb-lattice model to demonstrate the essential physics of the Takagi topological insulator. It is found that with unchanged topological invariant, one can tune topological boundary modes by not only parameters, but also boundary selections. It goes beyond the common wisdom about bulk-boundary correspondence, and gives rise to much richer boundary physics.

Our model with novel physics is closely related to real systems. It is easier to realize our model by photonic/phononic crystals, electric-circuit arrays and mechanics systems, since only have nearest-neighbor hopping amplitudes are included into the model. Several special cases of our model have been recently realized in photonic/phononic crystals Yang et al. (2020); Noh et al. (2018), where hopefully the general form of our model can be further experimentally examined.

Acknowledgements.
The authors acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants (No.11874201, No.12174181, and No.12161160315).

Appendix A Theoretical method for critical conditon of rhombic sample

The lattice is shown as FIG.1 in main text. The Hamiltonian \mathcal{H} in 22D momentum space is given in Eq. (1). The determinant of \mathcal{H} is given as

det()=EE,\displaystyle\det(\mathcal{H})=-EE^{*},
E=2t1t2t3t1t2t3+t12χ¯𝒌(1)+t22χ𝒌(2)+t32χ𝒌(3).\displaystyle E=-2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}-t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}+t_{1}^{2}\bar{\chi}^{(1)}_{\bm{k}}+t_{2}^{2}\chi^{(2)}_{\bm{k}}+t_{3}^{2}\chi^{(3)}_{\bm{k}}.

For simplicity, we write 𝒌𝐚i\bm{k}\cdot\mathbf{a}_{i} as kik_{i}. To make \mathcal{H} gapless, we obtain

2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1cosk1+t22t2cosk2+t32t3cosk3)=0,t12t1sink1t22t2sink2t32t3sink3=0.\displaystyle\begin{split}&2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\\ &\leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ -(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\cos k_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\cos k_{3})=0,\\ &t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\sin k_{1}-t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\sin k_{2}-t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\sin k_{3}=0.\end{split} (14)

Because the hopping terms are real and positive, we know that

min(2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1cosk1+t22t2cosk2+t32t3cosk3))=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1+t22t2+t32t3),\begin{split}&\min(2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\\ &-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\cos k_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\cos k_{3}))\\ =&2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}),\end{split} (15)

with k1=k2=k3=0k_{1}=k_{2}=k_{3}=0. Meanwhile, the second formula in the Eq. (14) always holds. Therefore, 2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1+t22t2+t32t3)=02t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3})=0 corresponds to the gapless phase, which is also the critical phase between trival and nontrival phases.

Refer to caption
FIG. 6: Each point represents a unit cell. The lattice is semi-infinite in the direction perpendicular to the vector 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1}.

Opening the boundary parallel to the lattice vector 𝐚1\mathbf{a}_{1} as FIG. 6, the Hamiltonian is transformed to

2=[0t10t2S20t3t10t20t3eik1S200t20t30t1eik1t2S20t30t100t3eik1S20t10t2t30t1eik10t20],\mathcal{H}_{2}=\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{1}&0&t^{\prime}_{2}S_{2}^{\dagger}&0&t_{3}\\ t_{1}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{1}}S_{2}^{\dagger}&0\\ 0&t_{2}&0&t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{ik_{1}}\\ t^{\prime}_{2}S_{2}&0&t_{3}&0&t_{1}&0\\ 0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{-ik_{1}}S_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&t_{2}\\ t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{-ik_{1}}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix},

where S2S_{2} and S2S_{2}^{\dagger} are the forward and backward translation operators along the 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2}-direction, respectively. The actions of S2S_{2} and S2S_{2}^{\dagger} on the real space basis of the tight-binding model for the the 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2}-direction are given by

S2|i=|i+1,S2|i=|i1,S2|0=0,S_{2}|i\rangle=|i+1\rangle,\quad S_{2}^{\dagger}|i\rangle=|i-1\rangle,\quad S_{2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle=0, (16)

where the nonnegative integer i labeling the lattice site along the 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2}-direction. Accordingly, the matrices can be explicitly written as

S2=[0000100001000010],S2=[0100001000010000].S_{2}=\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&0&\cdots\\ 1&0&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&1&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&1&0&\cdots\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{bmatrix},\quad S_{2}^{\dagger}=\begin{bmatrix}0&1&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&1&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&0&1&\cdots\\ 0&0&0&0&\cdots\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{bmatrix}.

Adopting the Ansa¨\ddot{a}tze

|ψ(k1)=i=0λi|i|ξ(k1),2|ψ(k1)=|ψ(k1)|\psi(k_{1})\rangle=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\lambda^{i}|i\rangle\otimes|\xi(k_{1})\rangle,\quad\mathcal{H}_{2}|\psi(k_{1})\rangle=\mathcal{E}|\psi(k_{1})\rangle

with |λ|<1|\lambda|<1 for the boundary states. In the bulk with i1i\geq 1, we obtain that

[0t10t2λ0t3t10t20t3eik1λ00t20t30t1eik1t2λ10t30t100t3eik1λ10t10t2t30t1eik10t20][ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6]=[ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6].\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{1}&0&t^{\prime}_{2}\lambda&0&t_{3}\\ t_{1}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{1}}\lambda&0\\ 0&t_{2}&0&t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{ik_{1}}\\ t^{\prime}_{2}\lambda^{-1}&0&t_{3}&0&t_{1}&0\\ 0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{-ik_{1}}\lambda^{-1}&0&t_{1}&0&t_{2}\\ t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{-ik_{1}}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\end{bmatrix}=\mathcal{E}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\end{bmatrix}. (17)

Restricting to the surface layer with i=0i=0, we obtain that

[0t10t2λ0t3t10t20t3eik1λ00t20t30t1eik100t30t10000t10t2t30t1eik10t20][ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6]=[ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6].\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{1}&0&t^{\prime}_{2}\lambda&0&t_{3}\\ t_{1}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{1}}\lambda&0\\ 0&t_{2}&0&t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{ik_{1}}\\ 0&0&t_{3}&0&t_{1}&0\\ 0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{2}\\ t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{-ik_{1}}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\end{bmatrix}=\mathcal{E}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\end{bmatrix}. (18)

The difference of Eqs. (17) and (18) gives ξ1=ξ2=0\xi_{1}=\xi_{2}=0. Thus, the effective Hamiltonian for the boundary state is

eff1=[0t30t1eikt30t100t10t2t1eik0t20].\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{1}=\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{3}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}e^{ik}\\ t_{3}&0&t_{1}&0\\ 0&t_{1}&0&t_{2}\\ t^{\prime}_{1}e^{-ik}&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}. (19)

The determinant of eff1\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{1} is given by

det(eff1)=t22t32+t12(t1)22t1t2t3t1cosk.\det(\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{1})=t_{2}^{2}t_{3}^{2}+t_{1}^{2}(t^{\prime}_{1})^{2}-2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k. (20)

Therefore, we know deteff1=0\det\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{1}=0 with k1=0k_{1}=0 only when t2t3=t1t1t_{2}t_{3}=t_{1}t^{\prime}_{1}. In other words, the boundary effective Hamiltonian eff1\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{1} corresponds to a gapless phase only if t2t3=t1t1t_{2}t_{3}=t_{1}t^{\prime}_{1}. By the same way, we obtain the gapless boundary along the direction of 𝐚2\mathbf{a}_{2} and 𝐚3\mathbf{a}_{3} with t1t3=t2t2t_{1}t_{3}=t_{2}t^{\prime}_{2} and t1t2=t3t3t_{1}t_{2}=t_{3}t^{\prime}_{3}, respectively.

Appendix B Theoretical method for critical conditon of square-shaped sample

Here, we present the square-shaped and parallelogram-shaped boundary conditions as examples to derive the critical points for parameters.

Refer to caption
FIG. 7: The square-shaped lattice. For translational invariance along the horizontal and vertical directions, we take 12 sites as an unit cell.

The Hamiltonian (𝒌)\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}) in reciprocal space can be written as

[0a1000a200b3eiky000a10a3000000b2ei(kxky)000a30a20b1eikx00000000a20a1000000b3eikx000a10a3b200000a20b1eikx0a300000000000b200a3000a1000000a30a20b1eikx0b3eiky000000a20a1000b2ei(kxky)000000a10a300000000b1eikx0a30a2000b3eikx00a1000a20]\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{12}\begin{bmatrix}0&a_{1}&0&0&0&a_{2}&0&0&b_{3}e^{-ik_{y}}&0&0&0\\ a_{1}&0&a_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&b_{2}e^{i(k_{x}-k_{y})}&0&0\\ 0&a_{3}&0&a_{2}&0&b_{1}e^{ik_{x}}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&a_{2}&0&a_{1}&0&0&0&0&0&0&b_{3}e^{ik_{x}}\\ 0&0&0&a_{1}&0&a_{3}&b_{2}&0&0&0&0&0\\ a_{2}&0&b_{1}e^{-ik_{x}}&0&a_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&b_{2}&0&0&a_{3}&0&0&0&a_{1}\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&a_{3}&0&a_{2}&0&b_{1}e^{ik_{x}}&0\\ b_{3}e^{ik_{y}}&0&0&0&0&0&0&a_{2}&0&a_{1}&0&0\\ 0&b_{2}e^{-i(k_{x}-k_{y})}&0&0&0&0&0&0&a_{1}&0&a_{3}&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&b_{1}e^{-ik_{x}}&0&a_{3}&0&a_{2}\\ 0&0&0&b_{3}e^{-ik_{x}}&0&0&a_{1}&0&0&0&a_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}

To find the critical condition for topological phase transition, we calculate the determinant of the bulk Hamiltonian,

det((𝒌))=(2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1coskx+t22t2cosky+t32t3cos(kxky))2(t12t1sinkxt22t2sink2t32t3sin(kxky))20.\begin{split}&\mathrm{det}(\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}))=-(2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{x}\\ &+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\cos k_{y}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\cos(k_{x}-k_{y}))^{2}\\ &-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\sin k_{x}-t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\sin k_{2}-t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\sin(k_{x}-k_{y}))^{2}\leq 0.\\ \end{split}

So, if the Hamiltonian has zero energy, det((𝒌))(\mathcal{H}(\bm{k})) must be zero and

A=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1coskx+t22t2cosky+t32t3cos(kxky))=0,B=t12t1sinkxt22t2sink2t32t3sin(kxky)=0.\begin{split}&A=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{x}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\cos k_{y}\\ &\leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ +t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\cos(k_{x}-k_{y}))=0,\\ &B=t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\sin k_{x}-t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\sin k_{2}\\ &\leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ -t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\sin(k_{x}-k_{y})=0.\end{split} (21)

On the other hand,

A=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1coskx+t22t2cosky+t32t3cos(kxky))2t1t2t3+t1t2t3(t12t1+t22t2+t32t3),\begin{split}&A=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{x}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}\cos k_{y}\\ &+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}\cos(k_{x}-k_{y}))\\ &\leq 2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}-(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}),\end{split} (22)

if and only if kx=ky=0(kx,y[π,π])k_{x}=k_{y}=0(k_{x,y}\in[-\pi,\pi]), the equal sign establishes in the inequality. And at this moment, B=0B=0 also holds. Hence the condition of det(𝒌)=0(\mathcal{H}_{\bm{k}})=0 is

t12t1+t22t2+t32t3=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3.t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}+t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}+t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}. (23)

When the above equation holds, there exist gapless bulk states, more explicitly, there is a Dirac point localized at kx=ky=0k_{x}=k_{y}=0. So this condition may be the critical point between trivial and nontrivial topological phases. We check the parameter condition (23) with numerical wilson loop method and find the condition (23) is the critical point exactly.

Note that although the Eqs. (21) has solutions beyond Γ\Gamma point, such as (π,0),(0,π),(π,π)(\pi,0),(0,\pi),(\pi,\pi), we check that the parameters conditions for these zero-energy points do not distingush the trivial and non-trivial topological phases.

B.1 The zigzag boundary

We first study zigzag boundary, namely, yy direction is periodic. In this case, by replacing eikxe^{-ik_{x}} with SS, where SS is ladder operator and S|i=|i+1,S|i=|i1,S|0=0S|i\rangle=|i+1\rangle,S^{\dagger}|i\rangle=|i-1\rangle,S^{\dagger}|0\rangle=0. More explicitly, the semi-infinite translation operators are now written as

S=[0000100001000010],S=[0100001000010000].S=\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&0&\cdots\\ 1&0&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&1&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&1&0&\cdots\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{bmatrix},\quad S^{\dagger}=\begin{bmatrix}0&1&0&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&1&0&\cdots\\ 0&0&0&1&\cdots\\ 0&0&0&0&\cdots\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{bmatrix}.

By taking the ansatz

|ψ𝒌=i=0λi|i|ξ,|λ|<1|\psi_{\bm{k}}\rangle=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\lambda^{i}|i\rangle\otimes|\xi\rangle,\quad|\lambda|<1 (24)

for the boundary states, we solve the eigenvalue equation of Hamiltonian. In the bulk with i1i\geq 1, we have

[0t1000t200t3eiky000t10t3000000t2eikyλ000t30t20t1λ00000000t20t1000000t3λ000t10t3t200000t20t1λ10t300000000000t200t3000t1000000t30t20t1λ0t3eiky000000t20t1000t2eikyλ1000000t10t300000000t1λ10t30t2000t3λ100t1000t20][ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6ξ7ξ8ξ9ξ10ξ11ξ12]=[ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6ξ7ξ8ξ9ξ10ξ11ξ12]\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{12}\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{1}&0&0&0&t_{2}&0&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{-ik_{y}}&0&0&0\\ t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{2}e^{-ik_{y}}\lambda&0&0\\ 0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&t_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{3}\lambda\\ 0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&0&0&0\\ t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda^{-1}&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&t_{1}\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda&0\\ t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{y}}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&0\\ 0&t^{\prime}_{2}e^{ik_{y}}\lambda^{-1}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda^{-1}&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}\\ 0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{3}\lambda^{-1}&0&0&t_{1}&0&0&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\\ \xi_{7}\\ \xi_{8}\\ \xi_{9}\\ \xi_{10}\\ \xi_{11}\\ \xi_{12}\end{bmatrix}=\mathcal{E}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\\ \xi_{7}\\ \xi_{8}\\ \xi_{9}\\ \xi_{10}\\ \xi_{11}\\ \xi_{12}\end{bmatrix} (25)

On the boundary with i=0i=0, we have

[0t1000t200t3eiky000t10t3000000t2eikyλ000t30t20t1λ00000000t20t1000000t3λ000t10t3t200000t2000t300000000000t200t3000t1000000t30t20t1λ0t3eiky000000t20t10000000000t10t30000000000t30t2000000t1000t20][ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6ξ7ξ8ξ9ξ10ξ11ξ12]=[ξ1ξ2ξ3ξ4ξ5ξ6ξ7ξ8ξ9ξ10ξ11ξ12]\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{12}\begin{bmatrix}0&t_{1}&0&0&0&t_{2}&0&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{-ik_{y}}&0&0&0\\ t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{2}e^{-ik_{y}}\lambda&0&0\\ 0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&t_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{3}\lambda\\ 0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&0&0&0\\ t_{2}&0&0&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&t_{3}&0&0&0&t_{1}\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{1}\lambda&0\\ t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{y}}&0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{2}&0&t_{1}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&t_{1}&0&0&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\\ \xi_{7}\\ \xi_{8}\\ \xi_{9}\\ \xi_{10}\\ \xi_{11}\\ \xi_{12}\end{bmatrix}=\mathcal{E}\begin{bmatrix}\xi_{1}\\ \xi_{2}\\ \xi_{3}\\ \xi_{4}\\ \xi_{5}\\ \xi_{6}\\ \xi_{7}\\ \xi_{8}\\ \xi_{9}\\ \xi_{10}\\ \xi_{11}\\ \xi_{12}\end{bmatrix} (26)

The difference of Eqs. (25) and (26) gives

ξ2=ξ3=ξ4=ξ8=0.\xi_{2}=\xi_{3}=\xi_{4}=\xi_{8}=0. (27)

Since the boundary effective Hamiltonian is given by

eff=ξi||ξj,\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\langle\xi^{i}|\mathcal{H}|\xi^{j}\rangle, (28)

we obtain the equivalent form of boundary effective Hamiltonian, namely, by deleting the 2nd,3rd,4th,8th2^{\mathrm{nd}},3^{\mathrm{rd}},4^{\mathrm{th}},8^{\mathrm{th}} rows and columns of the original Hamiltonian,

ky=[00t20t3eiky00000t3t20000t2t30000000t200000t1t3eiky0000t1000000t10t3000000t30t2000t100t20].\mathcal{H}_{k_{y}}=\begin{bmatrix}0&0&t_{2}&0&t^{\prime}_{3}e^{-ik_{y}}&0&0&0\\ 0&0&t_{3}&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&0&0\\ t_{2}&t_{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&t^{\prime}_{2}&0&0&0&0&0&t_{1}\\ t^{\prime}_{3}e^{ik_{y}}&0&0&0&0&t_{1}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&t_{1}&0&t_{3}&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&t_{3}&0&t_{2}\\ 0&0&0&t_{1}&0&0&t_{2}&0\end{bmatrix}. (29)

Since the topological transitions must undergo a gapless state (or break symmetries, but we preserve symmetries here), we can derive the critical conditons of phase-transition point by letting the determinant of ky\mathcal{H}_{k_{y}} being equal to 0, namely,

det(ky)=t12(t24(t2)2+t32(t3)22t22t32t2t3cosky)t12(t22t2t32t3)20,\begin{split}\mathrm{det}(\mathcal{H}_{k_{y}})&=t_{1}^{2}(t_{2}^{4}(t^{\prime}_{2})^{2}+t_{3}^{2}(t^{\prime}_{3})^{2}-2t_{2}^{2}t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}t_{3}\cos k_{y})\\ &\geq t_{1}^{2}(t_{2}^{2}t^{\prime}_{2}-t_{3}2t_{3})^{2}\geq 0,\\ \end{split} (30)

if and only if ky=0(ky[π,π])k_{y}=0(k_{y}\in[-\pi,\pi]), the first equal sign establishes in the first inequality. And if and only if ky=0k_{y}=0 and a22t2=t32t3a^{2}_{2}t^{\prime}_{2}=t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}, the second equal sign establishes in the second inequlity. Hence the condition of det(ky)=0(\mathcal{H}_{k_{y}})=0 having solutions is

a22t2=t32t3.a^{2}_{2}t^{\prime}_{2}=t_{3}^{2}t^{\prime}_{3}. (31)

When the above equation holds, there exist gapless boundary states along the zigzag boundary, more explicitly, there is a Dirac point localized at ky=0k_{y}=0.

B.2 The armchair boundary

Following the same argument, we can obtain the boundary effective Hamiltonian along the periodic xx direction, namely, the armchair boundary,

kx=(0t1000t20000t10t300000000t30t20t1eikx000000t20t10000t3eikx000t10t3t2000t20t1eikx0t3000000000t200t30t1000000t30t1eikx00000000t1eikx0t2000t3eikx00t10t20).\mathcal{H}_{k_{x}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cccccccccc}0&{t_{1}}&0&0&0&{t_{2}}&0&0&0&0\\ {t_{1}}&0&{t_{3}}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&{t_{3}}&0&{t_{2}}&0&{t^{\prime}_{1}}e^{i{k_{x}}}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&{t_{2}}&0&{t_{1}}&0&0&0&0&{t^{\prime}_{3}}e^{i{k_{x}}}\\ 0&0&0&{t_{1}}&0&{t_{3}}&{t^{\prime}_{2}}&0&0&0\\ {t_{2}}&0&{t^{\prime}_{1}}e^{-i{k_{x}}}&0&{t_{3}}&0&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&{t^{\prime}_{2}}&0&0&{t_{3}}&0&{t_{1}}\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&{t_{3}}&0&{t^{\prime}_{1}}e^{i{k_{x}}}&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&{t^{\prime}_{1}}e^{-i{k_{x}}}&0&{t_{2}}\\ 0&0&0&{t^{\prime}_{3}}e^{-i{k_{x}}}&0&0&{t_{1}}&0&{t_{2}}&0\\ \end{array}\right). (32)

Thus we have

det(kx)=(t22t33+t12(t1)22t1t2t3t1coskx)(t14t12+4t12t22t322t12t1cos(kx)(2t1t2t3+t1t2t3)+4t1t2t3t1t2t3+t12t22t32)(t2t3t1t1)2(t12t1(2t1t2t3+t1t2t3))20.\begin{split}\mathrm{det}(\mathcal{H}_{k_{x}})=&(t_{2}^{2}t_{3}^{3}+t_{1}^{2}(t^{\prime}_{1})^{2}-2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}t^{\prime}_{1}\cos k_{x})\\ &\cdot({t_{1}}^{4}{t^{\prime}_{1}}^{2}+4{t_{1}}^{2}{t_{2}}^{2}{t_{3}}^{2}-2{t_{1}}^{2}{t^{\prime}_{1}}\cos{k_{x}}(2{t_{1}}{t_{2}}{t_{3}}+{t^{\prime}_{1}}{t^{\prime}_{2}}{t^{\prime}_{3}})+4{t_{1}}{t_{2}}{t_{3}}{t^{\prime}_{1}}{t^{\prime}_{2}}{t^{\prime}_{3}}+{t^{\prime}_{1}}^{2}{t^{\prime}_{2}}^{2}{t^{\prime}_{3}}^{2})\\ \geq&(t_{2}t_{3}-t_{1}t^{\prime}_{1})^{2}(t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}-(2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}))^{2}\geq 0.\end{split} (33)

if and only if kx=0(ky[π,π])k_{x}=0(k_{y}\in[-\pi,\pi]), the first equal sign establishes in the first inequality. And if and only if kx=0k_{x}=0 and t2t3=t1t1t_{2}t_{3}=t_{1}t^{\prime}_{1} or t12t1=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3}, the second equal sign establishes in the second inequlity. However, the condition t12t1=2t1t2t3+t1t2t3t_{1}^{2}t^{\prime}_{1}=2t_{1}t_{2}t_{3}+t^{\prime}_{1}t^{\prime}_{2}t^{\prime}_{3} corresponds the trivial topological phases. Hence the condition of det(ky)=0(\mathcal{H}_{k_{y}})=0 having solutions is

t2t3=t1t1.t_{2}t_{3}=t_{1}t^{\prime}_{1}. (34)

It is noted that the relation is same as that of rohmbic sample. When the above equation holds, there exist gapless boundary states along the armchair boundary. More explicitly, there is a Dirac point localized at kx=0k_{x}=0.

Refer to caption
FIG. 8: The lattice structure of 3D Tagaki insulator, which is formed by satcking the 2D honeycomb lattice with alternative interlayer hoppings. The hopping between layers is colored by orange and yellow.

Appendix C 3D honeycomb model

We construct a 3D model by stacking 2D honeycomb Takagi insulator in a manner of stageer as shown in Fig.8. Here ti=t,ti=Tt_{i}=t,t^{\prime}_{i}=T, the Hamiltonian is given by

H(k)=[0Q(k)Q(k)0],Q=[A(k)eikzB(k)B(k)A(k)],H(k)=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}0&Q(k)\\ Q^{\dagger}(k)&0\end{array}\right],Q=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}A(k)&e^{ik_{z}}B(k)\\ B(k)&A^{*}(k)\end{array}\right], (35)

where B(k)=(t4+t5eikz)I3B(k)=\left(t_{4}+t_{5}e^{-ik_{z}}\right)I_{3} and

A(k)=[Teik𝐚1tttTeik𝐚2tttTeik𝐚3].A(k)=\left[\begin{array}[]{ccc}Te^{ik\cdot\mathbf{a}_{1}}&t&t\\ t&Te^{ik\cdot\mathbf{a}_{2}}&t\\ t&t&Te^{ik\cdot\mathbf{a}_{3}}\end{array}\right]. (36)

To get corner zero-modes of hexagonal prisms sample in main text, we set parameters as t=1,T=3,t4=0.5,t6=0.8.t=1,T=3,t_{4}=0.5,t_{6}=0.8.

Appendix D Different boundary modes

Refer to caption
FIG. 9: Different boundary modes for arbitary-shaped sample keeping PTPT symmetry. With Same parameter but different open boundary conditions can bring different corner states and even helical edge states. The parameters for all samples are set as t1=t2=t3<t1=t2=t3t_{1}=t_{2}=t_{3}<t^{\prime}_{1}=t^{\prime}_{2}=t^{\prime}_{3}.

As proposed in maintext, by cutting different-shaped samples that preserve the 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} symmetry, without changing the parameters, the system can possess distinguishable boundary-modes.

Refer to caption
FIG. 10: Rhombic sample with a hollow rhombus. The zero-modes can locate on different corner by cutting different shape with invariant parameters as (a) and (b).

Here we take some representatived example to show that result, which can be seen in Fig.9 and 10. It is noted that, as shown in Fig.10, we can tune the position of corner zero-modes by cutting different gometric shape. Specificly, without changing parameters the local zero-modes can locate on different 𝒫𝒯\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T} symmetry-related corners (acute angle or obtuse angle).

References