Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Identifying biases of the Majorana scattering invariant

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.01069 v1 pith:6H23KG4L submitted 2025-04-01 cond-mat.mes-hall

classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords finitetopologicalinvariantmajoranascatteringsystemstopologyambiguous
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The easily accessible experimental signatures of Majorana modes are ambiguous and only probe topology indirectly: for example, quasi-Majorana states mimic most properties of Majoranas. Establishing a correspondence between an experiment and a theoretical model known to be topological resolves this ambiguity. Here we demonstrate that already theoretically determining whether a finite system is topological is by itself ambiguous. In particular, we show that the scattering topological invariant -- a probe of topology most closely related to transport signatures of Majoranas -- has multiple biases in finite systems. For example, we identify that quasi-Majorana states also mimic the scattering invariant of Majorana zero modes in intermediate-sized systems. We expect that the bias due to finite size effects is universal, and advocate that the analysis of topology in finite systems should be accompanied by a comparison with the thermodynamic limit. Our results are directly relevant to the applications of the topological gap protocol.

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. Response to recent comments on Phys. Rev. B 107, 245423 (2023) and Subsection S4.3 of the Supp. Info. for Nature 638, 651-655 (2025)

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors defend the topological gap protocol's false discovery rate estimate against two recent comments, adding robustness checks and disclosing a bias-range cropping bug in the published supplementary information.

Pith tools