Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Adiabatic nonabelian braiding of imperfect Majoranas

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an adiabatically corrected braiding protocol performs a nonabelian rotation on imperfect Majorana bound states, with the rotation angle shrinking to zero only when the system becomes an ordinary fermion.

desk verdict Solid analytic result for symmetric imperfect Majoranas, but the 'nonabelian for all η<1' claim is only proven in the symmetric fine-tuned case; the asymmetric generalization is an empirical fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11039 v1 pith:K53VKSPC submitted 2025-07-15 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Maximilian Nitsch , Viktor Svensson , William Samuelson , Konstantin Nestmann , Jeroen Danon , Karsten Flensberg , Rubén Seoane Souto , Martin Leijnse This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords MajoranaboundstatesnonabelianbraidingadiabaticBerryphaseminimalKitaevchainsground-statedegeneracyMBSsimilaritytopologicalquantumcomputing
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

Majorana bound states are zero-energy quasiparticles whose exchange (braiding) is expected to demonstrate nonabelian behavior, meaning the final state depends on the order of exchanges. Real devices, however, host only imperfect Majoranas that partly resemble ordinary fermions. This paper studies a coupling-based braiding protocol on three pairs of Majoranas with a tunable overlap parameter $\eta$ that interpolates between isolated Majoranas and fully overlapping fermion pairs. It shows that adding a compensating coupling, tuned so that the ground-state degeneracy stays exact throughout the protocol, removes the dynamical phase that otherwise destroys the braid. The central result is that the corrected double braid acts as a controlled rotation whose angle is a known function of $\eta$, staying nonabelian for every $\eta<1$ and approaching the trivial fermion operation only at $\eta=1$.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a rotation-based diagonalization of the eight-Majorana Hamiltonian. The Majoranas are split into two groups with only inter-group couplings, so a singular-value decomposition diagonalizes the system without mixing the groups. This produces dressed ground-state Majoranas $\gamma_1^D,\gamma_\Delta^D$, the projector $P=\tfrac12(1-i\gamma_1^D\gamma_\Delta^D)$, and a degeneracy condition $\epsilon(\lambda,\eta)=\lambda$ that fixes the compensating coupling throughout the protocol. The nonabelian Berry phase computed from $P$ factorizes into three protocol intervals; in the first and third intervals the integrand becomes constant, and only the middle interval requires solving a differential equation in a Pauli-matrix representation. The resulting angles $\phi,\tilde{\phi}$ depend on the overlap $\eta$ and enter the final rotation $U(\eta)$.

What would settle it

Measure the probability that the two outer parity bits flip after a corrected double braid in a three-chain T-junction while sweeping the overlap $\eta$; if the measured curve does not match $S(\eta)=\sin^2\!\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(1-\eta^2)^3}{1-\eta^6}}\right)$ — unity at $\eta=0$, decreasing and reaching zero only at $\eta=1$ — the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the ground-state sector, the corrected double-braid operator is $U(\eta)=\exp((\phi-\tilde{\phi})\gamma_3\gamma_2)$ with $\phi-\tilde{\phi}=\frac{\pi}{4}\frac{1-\eta^2}{\sqrt{1+\eta^2+\eta^4}}$, so the protocol implements a partial exchange of the two outer Majoranas. The paper defines the MBS similarity $S(U)=\mathrm{Tr}(U^2(\eta)^\dagger U^2(0))^2/4=\sin^2\!\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(1-\eta^2)^3}{1-\eta^6}}\right)$, which quantifies how closely a double braid matches the isolated-Majorana result. At $\eta=0$ the operation is the standard exchange, while at $\eta=1$ it is the identity; for $\eta\lesssim0.25$ the double braid is almost indistinguishable from the isolated case, and the paper argues the result remains nonabelian for all $\eta<1$. This is established by an adiabatic nonabelian Berry-phase calculation after restoring degeneracy with the correction term.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical solution assumes that all three Majorana pairs have exactly the same overlap $\eta$ and that the two compensating couplings are equal; with asymmetric overlaps the paper relies on an empirically fitted effective-overlap formula, and the numerical search for the compensating couplings fails when the effective overlap is large.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For overlaps $\eta\lesssim0.25$, the corrected double braid reproduces the isolated-Majorana operation to high accuracy, so short chains with imperfect Majoranas remain useful for braiding tests.
  • The corrected result does not pick up a dynamical phase and is insensitive to the precise duration and shape of the coupling pulses, unlike the uncorrected protocol whose outcome oscillates with the protocol time.
  • A parity measurement after the double braid gives a direct experimental signature: the initial parities flip in the isolated limit, stay unchanged in the fermion limit, and rotate through an intermediate value determined by $S(\eta)$.
  • The protocol can be implemented in quantum-dot-based minimal Kitaev chains, where the overlaps and the compensating couplings are tunable via gate voltages and superconductor phases.
  • For the opposite total-parity sector the correction requires a large compensating coupling that closes or reduces the gap, so the practical protocol works in the parity sector with the larger gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the empirical effective-overlap rule $\eta_{\rm eff}=\sqrt{\eta_1\sqrt{\eta_2\eta_3}}$ holds beyond the tested range, the analytic curve $S(\eta)$ doubles as a calibration tool: measuring the parity-flip probability after a double braid would directly estimate the device's effective Majorana overlap.
  • The paper's symmetric-overlap assumption leaves open whether the exact statement that braiding remains nonabelian for all $\eta<1$ survives asymmetric device parameters; the numerical search for compensating couplings fails at larger effective overlaps, so a practical device may need another way to find them.
  • The result suggests that topological protection is not a strict prerequisite for a useful nonabelian gate: a device with moderate overlap could implement a known, reproducible rotation rather than the ideal exchange, which may be sufficient for protocols that tolerate fixed gate errors.
  • Testing the protocol with deliberately unequal overlaps on one pair would discriminate between the effective-overlap formula and alternative averaging rules, since the predicted $S$ differs for each.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies adiabatic braiding of Majorana bound states with finite spatial overlap ("imperfect" MBSs), using the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) with a common overlap parameter η and correction couplings λ. It derives the double-braid operator in the ground-state sector, Eq. (14), with the angle given by Eq. (13), and the MBS similarity S(U) of Eq. (15), interpolating between full nonabelian exchange at η=0 and the identity at η=1. The authors argue that a suitably corrected protocol remains nonabelian for all η<1, and they support this with an analytical diagonalization in the SI, numerical time-dependent Schrödinger simulations, and a code reference. The SI also proposes an effective-overlap treatment of asymmetric MBS overlaps.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is a valuable conceptual contribution: it gives an exact nonabelian Berry-phase solution for a coupling-based braiding protocol in a finite-size model with overlapping Majoranas, and it identifies a simple experimental signature through the MBS similarity S(U). The paper is careful in several respects: the analytic diagonalization is explicit, the Berry-phase calculation is reduced to a solvable matrix differential equation, and the numerical results in Fig. S1 are shown to match the adiabatic formula. The provision of code for the numerical simulations is also a strength. However, the significance for realistic devices is currently limited by the symmetric-overlap assumption and by the empirical character of the asymmetric generalization, so the scope of the claims needs to be tightened.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, Model (Eq. (1)) and SI Sec. VIII (Eq. (S82), Fig. S2)] The claim 'the result remains nonabelian for all η<1' is established only for symmetric MBS overlaps η1=η2=η3 and equal correction couplings λ2=λ3. The extension to asymmetric overlaps in SI Sec. VIII uses an effective overlap η_eff = sqrt(η1*sqrt(η2*η3)), which is explicitly described as obtained by testing different averaging formulas, with the numerical optimization of λ2 and λ3 failing for larger η_eff and no error bounds reported for Fig. S2. Since real devices will generally have unequal overlaps, the general statement in the abstract and conclusions is not supported beyond the symmetric, fine-tuned model. I recommend either restricting the main claims to the symmetric case or providing a principled derivation, or a systematic bounded numerical study, for the asymmetric case.
  2. [SI Sec. I (Eqs. (S2), (S4), (S6)-(S10))] The proposed implementation in minimal Kitaev chains assumes that the correction parameter λ can be tuned independently while η remains fixed. However, in the two-site chain both quantities derive from the same microscopic parameters: Eq. (S2) gives the splitting as ε = Δ_car − t_cot, while Eq. (S4) and the accompanying text state that ζ (and hence η = ζ^2) depends on the energy detuning ε_k. The SI acknowledges this dependence but then treats ζ as a constant system parameter. As written, the claim that the protocol can be implemented in quantum-dot-based minimal Kitaev chains is therefore not fully supported; a concrete control scheme that keeps η fixed while λ(t) is varied, or a statement of the required device-level tuning, is needed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (15)] The expression for S(U) is written as Tr{U^2(η)† U^2(0)}^2/4, which is ambiguous: it should be made clear that the squared trace is divided by 4, i.e., (Tr[...])^2/4.
  2. [SI Sec. V, Eq. (S51)] The notation 'θα,µ|θ=0=0' mixes Greek letters; using consistent subscripts (θα and θμ) would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. S2 and surrounding text] The agreement in Fig. S2 is described only by eye as 'very well'; adding a quantitative measure, e.g., the maximum deviation in S(U) over the plotted range, would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central braiding-angle derivation is self-contained; only the asymmetric-overlap extension uses a numerically fitted effective overlap, disclosed in SI Sec. VIII.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Information, Section VIII 'Asymmetric MBS overlaps', around Eq. (S82) and Fig. S2]
    "We generalize the analytical result to account for the three different overlaps η1, η2, η3 by defining an effective MBS overlap ηeff = q η1√η2η3, which we use in in place ofη in the analytical result. This formula was obtained by testing different ways of taking the mean of the overlaps and this one worked the best."

    The effective-overlap extension is reverse-engineered from the numerics it is then compared against: the formula was chosen by testing averaging schemes and keeping the one that 'worked the best,' and Fig. S2 then presents the analytic curve computed with that ηeff alongside the same numerical solutions. The agreement is therefore partly in-sample rather than an independent prediction. This does not touch the central symmetric derivation (Eqs. 9-15), where η is an input and the braiding angles come from diagonalizing Eq. (1) and the Berry phase; the paper also discloses the empirical origin.

full rationale

The central claim is not circular. Equations (13)-(15) are derived from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) by a two-step chain: rotate the Majorana basis (SI Sec. II), enforce ground-state degeneracy via ε(λ,η)+σλ=0 (Eq. 11 / Eq. S31), solve λ in the τ23 interval (Eqs. S74-S76), and compute the nonabelian Berry phase from the projector P = (1 - iγD1γDΔ)/2 (Eq. 12 / Eqs. S42-S72). No target matrix S(U) or desired braiding angle is inserted; η is a fixed input and λ is determined by the degeneracy condition, not fitted to S(U). The numerical checks in SI Sec. VII use the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation with λ found by root-finding, which is an external check on the analytic result. The only fit-like element is SI Sec. VIII's effective overlap ηeff, chosen empirically to extend the result to asymmetric overlaps; the paper explicitly says it was obtained by testing averaging formulas. That is a disclosed, non-central generalization, not part of the derivation of the symmetric result. Hence no significant circularity in the main derivation, with a mild localized empirical element in the asymmetric extension.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard Majorana algebra, the adiabatic Berry-phase theorem, and the effective Hamiltonian model of three coupled minimal Kitaev chains. The main ad hoc element is the eta_eff formula for asymmetric overlaps, which is empirically selected. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The correction term lambda is a tunable coupling within the established Majorana framework, not a new entity.

free parameters (1)
  • eta_eff (effective overlap for asymmetric MBS overlaps) = sqrt(eta1*sqrt(eta2*eta3))
    SI Section VIII: this combination 'was obtained by testing different ways of taking the mean of the overlaps and this one worked the best.' It is an empirical choice used to extend the analytic result to asymmetric overlaps, not derived from the model.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Majorana operators obey canonical anticommutation relations gamma_i^2=1, {gamma_i,gamma_j}=0 for i != j, and each pair encodes a fermionic parity.
    Used throughout Eq. (1) and the diagonalization in SI Section II.
  • standard math The adiabatic theorem and nonabelian Berry phase formula U(eta)=T exp(-integral[P,dP]) (Eq. 12) apply to the time-dependent ground-state manifold.
    Basis of the central analytical calculation; standard result cited to Refs. [50,51].
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) captures the physics of three coupled minimal Kitaev chains, including the overlap error terms and the correction couplings.
    Introduced in the Model section and derived from the two-dot Kitaev chain model in SI Section I.
  • domain assumption Next-nearest-neighbor couplings (proportional to i gamma_i gamma~_j, i != j) can be turned off by tuning the phases of the couplings, 'which is always possible' [35].
    Stated in the Model section; relied upon to isolate the error and correction terms.
  • domain assumption The MBS overlap zeta (eta) is a constant system parameter independent of energy detuning epsilon_k.
    Explicitly stated in SI Section I: 'we assume that zeta is a constant system parameter independent of the variables epsilon_k.' Load-bearing for the analytic treatment.
  • domain assumption Ground-state degeneracy is restored by tuning lambda so that epsilon(eta,lambda)+sigma*lambda=0 (Eq. S31), and this can be maintained throughout the protocol.
    The correction scheme. The required lambda(t) depends on total parity sigma and on the relative signs of the error and correction terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adiabatic nonabelian braiding of imperfect Majoranas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K53VKSPC

@misc{pith2026250711039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adiabatic nonabelian braiding of imperfect Majoranas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K53VKSPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11039}
}
read the original abstract

Demonstration of a nontrivial result of quasiparticle exchange (or braiding) is usually considered the definitive proof of a topological phase with nonabelian excitations, such as Majorana bound states (MBSs). However, in finite systems with disorder and smooth potential variations, the MBSs are imperfect in the sense that they are not fully isolated in space and can, to a varying degree, resemble conventional fermions. Here, we study the braiding properties of isolated MBSs, regular fermions, and anything in between. We find a way to compensate for the undesired splitting of the ground-state degeneracy which occurs during the protocol for imperfect MBS. This leads to a braiding outcome that depends on the degree of MBS isolation but remains robust and nonabelian except in the perfect fermion limit. Our protocol could be implemented in different platforms with nonabelian excitations, including quantum-dot-based minimal Kitaev chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Example setup to implement coupling-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: One cycle of the time-dependent tuning of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: MBS similarity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantifying robustness and locality of Majorana bound states in interacting systems

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In interacting systems, the locality of ground-state Majorana operators, measured by fermionic partial traces, rigorously bounds how much an environment can split the ground-state degeneracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 15 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Yazdani, F

    A. Yazdani, F. von Oppen, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Science 380, 6651 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Das Sarma, M

    S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Karzig et al

    T. Karzig et al. , Phys. Rev. B 95, 235305 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Marra, J

    P. Marra, J. Appl. Phys. 132, 231101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Wilczek, Nat

    F. Wilczek, Nat. Phys. 5, 614 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Alicea, Rep

    J. Alicea, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 27, 124003 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Alicea, Y

    J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Nat. Phys. 7, 412 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Flensberg, Phys

    K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090503 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    J. D. Sau, D. J. Clarke, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094505 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    van Heck, A

    B. van Heck, A. R. Akhmerov, F. Hassler, M. Burrello, and C. W. J. Beenakker, New J. Phys.14, 035019 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Aasen et al

    D. Aasen et al. , Phys. Rev. X 6, 031016 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    M. Hell, M. Leijnse, and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107701 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Plugge, A

    S. Plugge, A. Rasmussen, R. Egger, and K. Flensberg, New J. Phys. 19, 012001 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    D. J. Clarke, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155451 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Phys. Usp. 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    J. D. Sau and S. Das Sarma, Nat. Commun. 3, 964 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. B 86, 134528 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    I. C. Fulga, A. Haim, A. R. Akhmerov, and Y. Oreg, New J. Phys. 15, 045020 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, and M. Leijnse, Phys. Rev. B 106, L201404 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    C.-X. Liu, G. Wang, T. Dvir, and M. Wimmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 267701 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Seoane Souto and R

    R. Seoane Souto and R. Aguado, Subgap states in semiconductor-superconductor devices for quantum tech- nologies: Andreev qubits and minimal majorana chains, in New Trends and Platforms for Quantum Technolo- gies, edited by R. Aguado, R. Citro, M. Lewenstein, and M. Stern (Spri...

    2024

  19. [27]

    G. Wang, T. Dvir, G. P. Mazur, C.-X. Liu, N. van Loo, S. L. D. ten Haaf, A. Bordin, S. Gazibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Nature 612, 448 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. P. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. L. D. ten Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, X. Li, F. K. Malinowski, S. Gazibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nature 614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Q. Wang, S. L. D. ten Haaf, I. Kulesh, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, and S. Goswami, Nature Com- munications 14, 4876 (2023). 6

    2023

  22. [30]

    Bordin, G

    A. Bordin, G. Wang, C.-X. Liu, S. L. D. ten Haaf, N. van Loo, G. P. Mazur, D. Xu, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, S. Gaz- ibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wim- mer, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and T. Dvir, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031031 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    van Driel, R

    D. van Driel, R. Koch, V. P. M. Sietses, S. L. D. ten Haaf, C.-X. Liu, F. Zatelli, B. Roovers, A. Bor- din, N. van Loo, G. Wang, J. C. Wolff, G. P. Mazur, T. Dvir, I. Kulesh, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, S. Gaz- ibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, S. Goswami, J. L....

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bordin, X

    A. Bordin, X. Li, D. van Driel, J. C. Wolff, Q. Wang, S. L. D. ten Haaf, G. Wang, N. van Loo, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, and T. Dvir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 056602 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    S. L. D. ten Haaf, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, P. Kim, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, T. Dvir, M. Wimmer, and S. Goswami, Nature 630, 329 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Bordin, F

    A. Bordin, F. J. B. Evertsz’, B. Roovers, J. D. T. Luna, W. D. Huisman, F. Zatelli, G. P. Mazur, S. L. D. ten Haaf, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, C.-X. Liu, R. S. Souto, N. van Loo, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, arXiv:2504.13702 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, K. Flensberg, J. Danon, and M. Leijnse, PRX Quantum 5, 010323 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Miles, F

    S. Miles, F. Zatelli, A. M. Bozkurt, M. Wimmer, and C.-X. Liu, arXiv:2501.16056 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Huang, R

    T. Huang, R. Zhang, X. Li, X.-J. Liu, X. C. Xie, and Y. Wu, arXiv:2101.11456 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Boross and A

    P. Boross and A. P´ alyi, Phys. Rev. B109, 125410 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    A. Vuik, B. Nijholt, A. R. Akhmerov, and M. Wimmer, SciPost Phys. 7, 61 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    D. J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201109(R) (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Prada, R

    E. Prada, R. Aguado, and P. San-Jose, Phys. Rev. B 96, 085418 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    M. T. Deng, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, K. Flensberg, J. Nyg ˚ ard, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, Science 354, 1557 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    M.-T. Deng, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, E. Prada, P. San-Jose, J. Nyg ˚ ard, P. Krogstrup, R. Aguado, and C. M. Mar- cus, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085125 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Karzig, F

    T. Karzig, F. Pientka, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 91, 201102(R) (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Talento Program

    for a description of the method as well as the param- eters used and Ref. [52] for the code. The uncorrected curve shows MBS behavior in a very small region around η ≈ 0. For larger MBS overlaps, the dynamical phase leads to an additional rotation within the almost degen- erat...

    2020

  38. [46]

    See Supplementary Information in (URL included by the Editor)

  39. [47]

    Sedlmayr and C

    N. Sedlmayr and C. Bena, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115115 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Sedlmayr, J

    N. Sedlmayr, J. M. Aguiar-Hualde, and C. Bena, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155425 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    S. V. Aksenov, A. O. Zlotnikov, and M. S. Shustin, Phys. Rev. B 101, 125431 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Samuelson, V

    W. Samuelson, V. Svensson, and M. Leijnse, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035415 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    J. E. Avron, L. Sadun, J. Segert, and B. Simon, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 124, 595 (1989)

    1989

  44. [52]

    Hassler, Topological quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2410.13547 [quant-ph]

    F. Hassler, Topological quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2410.13547 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nitsch, V

    M. Nitsch, V. Svensson, W. Samuelson, K. Nestmann, J. Danon, K. Flensberg, R. Seoane Souto, and M. Leijnse, Code for the article ”adiabatic nonabelian braiding of imperfect majoranas” (2025). Supplementary information for Adiabatic nonabelian braiding of imperfect Majoranas Ma...

    2025

  46. [54]

    For the two-site Kitaev chain, this parameter directly connects to the MBS po- larization M via M = 1−ζ2 1+ζ2

    and trivial states ( ζ = 1). For the two-site Kitaev chain, this parameter directly connects to the MBS po- larization M via M = 1−ζ2 1+ζ2 . In the case of minimal Kitaev chains, this introduces a dependence of ζ on the energy detuning ϵk. However, in the analysis in the main ...

  47. [55]

    In this parameter limit it simplifies crucially. III. PROTOCOL DEPENDENCE ON P ARITY SECTOR AND SIGN CHOICES Eq. (S31) shows a crucial difference in the braiding protocol performance between both total parities ( σ = ±1). Evaluating Eq. (S31) for the fermionic limit (η = 1) at...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.