Spin-Exchange Induced Spillover on Poor Man's Majoranas in Minimal Kitaev Chains

A.C. Seridonio; E. Marinho Jr.; H. Sigur{\dh}sson; J.E. Sanches; L.S. Ricco; L.T. Lustosa; M. de Souza; M.S. Figueira

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Spin-Exchange Induced Spillover on Poor Man's Majoranas in Minimal Kitaev Chains

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exchange coupling a spin to one dot of a minimal Kitaev chain makes the Poor Man's Majorana spill over, and the side-peak count—2S+1 for a fermionic spin, 2S+2 for a bosonic one—can be read from the differential conductance.

desk verdict A neat PMM-spin-exchange calculation whose statistics-detection fingerprint collapses if the impurity spin is allowed to polarize, which is the realistic case. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20321 v1 pith:KTYMVBIB submitted 2025-04-29 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-con

J.E. Sanches , L.T. Lustosa , L.S. Ricco , H. Sigur{ḥsson , M. de Souza , M.S. Figueira , E. Marinho Jr. , A.C. Seridonio This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con

keywords PoorMan'sMajoranasminimalKitaevchainMajoranazeromodesexchangecouplingspinstatisticsdifferentialconductancecrossedAndreevreflectionimpurity

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

This paper tries to establish that a quantum spin exchange-coupled to one quantum dot of a two-dot superconducting chain can act as a spin-statistics meter. The exchange interaction shifts the dot level by an amount that depends on the spin projection, so the conductance spectrum splits into a ladder of side peaks. The paper argues that a fermionic impurity spin $S$ shows $2S+1$ explicit peaks, a bosonic one $2S+2$, once crossed Andreev reflection is present, while the remaining half of the ladder is squeezed into a zero-energy state that looks like a leaked Poor Man's Majorana. Because the two cases also differ in line shape (flat versus curved levels), a transport measurement could in principle tell fermionic from bosonic spin impurities, which matters for proposals that use such impurities to control Majorana-based qubits.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Majorana representation of the two-dot Hamiltonian, in which the exchange term becomes $\frac{J}{2}S_z(\tfrac12+i\gamma_{L1}\gamma_{L2})$ and the interdot terms are $i(\Delta-t)\gamma_{L1}\gamma_{R2}+i(\Delta+t)\gamma_{L2}\gamma_{R1}$. That form shows how $J$ couples the otherwise isolated Majorana $\gamma_{L1}$ to the $\gamma_{L2}$-$\gamma_{R1}$ dimer, making a Majorana trimer and delocalizing the zero mode. The spectral functions are computed by equation-of-motion Green's functions that sum over spin projections with equal weight $1/(2S+1)$, and their poles at $\omega = \mu_{L\uparrow}+Jm/2 \pm \dots$ form the fine structure. The central identity is the parity of $2S+1$: for integer (bosonic) $S$ this number is odd, so a middle state at $\omega=|t|$ exists and is split by $\Delta$ into two, changing the visible count from $2S+1$ to $2S+2$; for half-integer (fermionic) $S$ it is even, no such middle state exists, and the count remains $2S+1$.

What would settle it

Measure the differential conductance versus bias and exchange coupling on a two-dot Kitaev chain with an exchange-coupled spin, at a temperature low enough to partially polarize the spin. The paper predicts $2S+1$ side peaks for a fermionic spin and $2S+2$ for a bosonic spin, with the bosonic side peaks pinned at $eV=|\Delta+t|$; if the peak count shrinks with polarization or the pinned levels move with $J$, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is the minimal Kitaev chain: two spinless superconducting quantum dots coupled by electron co-tunneling $t$ and crossed Andreev reflection $\Delta$. At the sweet spot $t=\Delta$ with zero dot levels, the two end Majorana operators form spatially isolated Poor Man's Majoranas. The paper's central claim is that an Ising exchange coupling $J$ between one dot and a quantum spin $S$ acts as a spin-dependent chemical potential, making one Poor Man's Majorana leak into the opposite dot and creating a delocalized zero mode. The spectrum around this zero mode is a fine structure indexed by the spin projection $m$: a fermionic $S$ gives $2S+1$ explicit levels and a bosonic $S$ gives $2S+2$, because for bosonic statistics the middle level $m=0$ at $\omega=|t|$ exists and is split by $\Delta$ into $|\Delta-t|$ and $|\Delta+t|$. In low-temperature differential conductance, fermionic impurities therefore show $J$-dependent arcs around zero bias, while bosonic ones show side peaks pinned at $|\Delta+t|$; switching off superconductivity removes the distinction and leaves $2S+1$ peaks for either statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats all spin projections as equally likely at every temperature and for every exchange strength; if the exchange coupling polarizes the spin, the predicted side-peak ladders would be incomplete and the statistics fingerprint would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A two-terminal conductance map of a minimal Kitaev chain can act as a spin-statistics detector: flat levels at $|\Delta+t|$ that do not bend with $J$ mark a bosonic spin, while $J$-dependent arcs mark a fermionic spin.
The zero-bias conductance in the spillover regime stays below $e^2/2h$, so the zero mode is a delocalized Andreev-type state rather than an isolated Poor Man's Majorana.
Without crossed Andreev reflection ($\Delta=0$), the visible side-peak count returns to $2S+1$ for both statistics, so superconducting pairing is the ingredient that makes spin statistics observable.
The exchange coupling provides a knob for detuning the left dot, extending existing initialization and readout protocols for Poor-Man-Majorana-based qubits.
Counting side peaks on each side of zero bias gives $(2S+1)/2$ for a fermionic spin and $(2S+2)/2$ for a bosonic spin, so the same measurement also yields the spin magnitude $S$.

Reading between the lines

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

As an extension beyond the paper: polarization of the impurity spin would break the equal-occupation assumption used in the Green's functions, hiding some side peaks; the fingerprint is therefore most reliable when the spin-projection distribution is flat or the prediction is amended for partial polarization.
As an extension beyond the paper: the side-peak spacing scales with $J/2$, so the same conductance map could serve as a spectroscopic estimate of the impurity spin's magnitude $S$ and of the effective exchange coupling, even when the statistics are already known.
As an extension beyond the paper: placing a second exchange-coupled spin on the right dot, which the paper mentions only as future work, would turn the detuning into a parity-dependent knob and could give a route to reading out a two-Poor-Man-Majorana qubit without physical braiding.
As an extension beyond the paper: because elementary point particles have fixed statistics, the practical target is a composite or emergent integer spin, such as a spin-1 molecule or magnetic adatom; verifying the flat $|\Delta+t|$ levels in such a system would be a direct test of the bosonic fingerprint.

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

The paper is a model calculation on the Leijnse-Flensberg PMM dimer with an Ising-coupled spin. The central prediction—a 2S+1 vs 2S+2 side-peak count that distinguishes half-integer from integer impurity spin—is neat and probably correct within the model as defined. The catch is that the model assumes the spin projections are maximally mixed, and that assumption does all the work.

Credit where it is due: extending the spillover idea to an exchange perturbation and showing that the presence (bosonic) or absence (fermionic) of the m=0 projection changes the level count in a way that shows up as flat versus bending conductance arcs is new, as far as I know. The flat |Δ+t| feature is a concrete, falsifiable fingerprint, and the paper properly grounds itself in the recent Nature PMM experiments and the earlier theory. The EOM expressions look standard and the figures are consistent with the stated counting.

The soft spot is load-bearing. In Eqs. (5)–(8) they set ⟨|m⟩⟨m|⟩ = 1/(2S+1) with no justification. That is the infinite-temperature spin density matrix, but the conductance is evaluated at T→0 for the electrons. In any real setup, the exchange term Jm⟨n_L↑⟩/2 splits the spin levels; at base temperature the m=−S state dominates and the fine structure collapses to a single resonance. The fingerprint is exactly the count of m states, so a polarized spin erases the 2S+1/2S+2 signal. The authors never propose a preparation protocol for a uniform mixture, nor do they discuss a decoherence bath that might maintain equipartition. Without that, the central claim is conditional on an unphysical limit.

Minor points: the “squeezing” language is metaphorical—what actually happens is that half the eigenvalues approach zero as Δ→t. And the distinction is really half-integer versus integer S, which in non-relativistic physics is the same as fermion/boson, but the rhetoric slightly oversells it.

This is a paper for the PMM and QD-superconductor community. It deserves a serious referee because the idea is interesting and the main flaw is fixable in principle: generalize the spin population to a Boltzmann distribution, or explicitly design a protocol to maintain a mixed spin state. With that addressed, the prediction is sharp and testable. As it stands, it reads as a conditional proposal. I would send it to peer review with a strong request to address the polarization issue—if the authors can show any realistic regime where equipartition holds, the paper could be good.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a minimal Kitaev chain formed by two spin-polarized quantum dots with electron co-tunneling t and crossed Andreev reflection Δ, adding an Ising exchange coupling J S_z s_z between the left dot and a localized spin S. Using equation-of-motion Green's functions, the authors compute spin-resolved spectral functions and the differential conductance of the chain. Their central claim is that for t=Δ (the Majorana chain regime), the exchange coupling makes the left poor man's Majorana spill onto the right dot, producing a delocalized zero-energy mode while the remaining fine structure shows 2S+1 visible arcs for half-integer S and 2S+2 visible arcs for integer S. They propose this multiplicity as a conductance-spectroscopy fingerprint that can distinguish fermionic from bosonic spin statistics, with flat conductance levels at |Δ+t| for the bosonic case.

Significance. If the result holds, the proposal is experimentally attractive because it builds directly on recent two-dot and three-dot Kitaev-chain devices and offers a transport-based test of the spin magnitude/parity of a magnetic impurity. The manuscript is self-contained: the Green's function calculation is transparent, the model parameters are clearly defined, and the predicted spectral features are concrete and falsifiable. The main limitation is that the fingerprint is obtained under an unstated equal-population assumption for the spin projections, and the quantitative conductance formula contains a questionable degeneracy prefactor; both points must be resolved before the proposal can be regarded as reliable.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.A, Eqs. (5)-(8)]
[Sec. II.B, after Eq. (17)]
[Abstract and Sec. IV]

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III, near Fig. 2]
[Sec. II.A, Eq. (4)]
[Fig. 4(c)]
[Sec. II]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fine-structure counting is a direct consequence of the assumed spin Hilbert space and Hamiltonian, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the explicit Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), the Green's functions in Eqs. (5)-(8) are obtained by a standard equation-of-motion approach; the only spin input is the operator S_z with projections m = -S,...,S. The observed multiplicity 2S+1 for half-integer (fermionic) spins and 2S+2 for integer (bosonic) spins follows directly from the number of m-terms in the spectral sum and from the splitting of the m=0 level by the superconducting pairing Delta; it is a mathematical consequence of the assumed spin algebra rather than a circular restatement. No parameter is fitted to data and no 'prediction' is a renamed fit. External results (PMM experiments, transport formalism) are cited as background or technical tools, not as load-bearing self-citations; none of the paper's authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives or supply a uniqueness theorem. The unpolarized-spin assumption <|m><m|> = 1/(2S+1) is physically restrictive and could undermine the statistics-detection protocol under polarization, but it is an unverified modeling choice, not a circular step: it does not smuggle in the conclusion that the paper claims to derive. Therefore the derivation chain is independent of its conclusions and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on an unpolarized spin ensemble, the Ising form of the exchange, and the spinless QD assumption. No free parameters are fitted to external data; t, Delta, mu, J, Gamma are model parameters scanned in the figures.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Equal spin-projection populations: langle |m><m| rangle = 1/(2S+1) for all m, independent of J and QD occupancy.
This enters Eqs. (5)-(8) and is load-bearing for the fine-structure count; an unpolarized spin is assumed without justification.
ad hoc to paper Ising exchange coupling J S_z s_z with no transverse components.
The Hamiltonian Eq. (1) uses only S_z; a general exchange would have S_plus and S_minus terms mixing m, changing the physics.
domain assumption Spinless QDs with only the spin-up channel due to an imposed large Zeeman splitting.
The paper states the QDs are within the spinless regime and arbitrarily chooses the spin-up channel, necessary for PMM formation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-Exchange Induced Spillover on Poor Man's Majoranas in Minimal Kitaev Chains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTYMVBIB

@misc{pith2026250420321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-Exchange Induced Spillover on Poor Man's Majoranas in Minimal Kitaev Chains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTYMVBIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20321}
}

abstract

The "Poor Man's Majoranas" (PMMs) [Phys. Rev. B 86, 134528 (2012)] devoid of topological protection can "spill over" from one edge into another of the minimal Kitaev chain when perturbed electrostatically. As aftermath, this leads to a delocalized Majorana fermion (MF) at both the edges. Additionally, according to recent differential conductance measurements in a pair of superconducting and spinless quantum dots (QDs), such a PMM picture was brought to reality [Nature 614, 445 (2023) and Nature 630, 329 (2024)]. Based on this scenario, we propose the spillover of the PMM when its QD is exchange coupled to a quantum spin $S$. We show that if this QD is perturbed by the exchange coupling $J$, solely the half $2S+1$ $(2S+2)$ of the fine structure stays explicit for a fermionic (bosonic) $S.$ Concurrently, the other half squeezes itself as the delocalized MF zero-mode. Particularly, turning-off the superconductivity the multiplicity $2S+1$ holds regardless the spin statistics. Meanwhile, the PMM spillover induced by $J$ becomes a statistics dependent effect. Hence, our findings contribute to the comprehension of spin-phenomena interplay with superconductivity in minimal Kitaev chains, offering insights for future quantum computing devices hosting PMMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20321 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The spillover of the PMM induced by J. Color maps of Adα↑d † α↑ and Aγαj in the “Majorana chain regime” spanned by ω and J showing that in the presence of the fermionic spin S, 2S + 1 of the fine structure is the explicit part. The other half 2S + 1 squeezes itself at ω = 0 forming the delocalized MF zero-mode due to the PMM spillover. aftermath of H = i(∆−t)γL1γR2+i(∆+t)γL2γR1. Thus, the Kitaev dimer with ∆ ̸= t an… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Color map of AdL↑d † L↑ off the “Majorana chain regime” spanned by ω and J for: (a) Fermion case S = 1.5. The total fine structure contains 2 × (2S + 1) levels as |J| increases, but the inner half reveals a squeezing into a delocalized MF zero-mode due to the spillover of the PMM. (b) Boson case S = 2. The entire fine structure is 2 × (2S + 2) as |J| increases and the inner half shows the same trend of (a). (c) and… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 14, 10.1007/BF02961314 (1937)

E. Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 14, 10.1007/BF02961314 (1937)

doi:10.1007/bf02961314 1937
[2]

Marra, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 231101 (2022)

P. Marra, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 231101 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Vernek, P

E. Vernek, P. H. Penteado, A. C. Seridonio, and J. C. Egues, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165314 (2014)

2014
[4]

Lesser and Y

O. Lesser and Y. Oreg, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55, 164001 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Pientka, L

F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 89, 180505 (2014)

2014
[6]

Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

2010
[7]

Pientka, L

F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155420 (2013)

2013
[8]

Klinovaja, P

J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, A. Yazdani, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 186805 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 65 references

[9]

Nadj-Perge, I

S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Phys. Rev. B 88, 020407 (2013)

2013
[10]

Fu and C

L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B 79, 161408 (2009)

2009
[11]

Fu and C

L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096407 (2008)

2008
[12]

M. M. Vazifeh and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 206802 (2013)

2013
[13]

Nakosai, Y

S. Nakosai, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 88, 180503 (2013)

2013
[14]

Braunecker and P

B. Braunecker and P. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 147202 (2013)

2013
[15]

A. C. Potter and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 85, 094516 (2012)

2012
[16]

S. B. Chung, H.-J. Zhang, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 84, 060510 (2011)

2011
[17]

C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1037 (2015)

2015
[18]

Sato and S

M. Sato and S. Fujimoto, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 85, 072001 (2016)

2016
[19]

Sato and Y

M. Sato and Y. Ando, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 076501 (2017)

2017
[20]

Haim and Y

A. Haim and Y. Oreg, Physics Reports 825, 1 (2019), time-reversal-invariant topological superconductivity in one and two dimensions

2019
[21]

Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012)

2012
[22]

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

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

2013
[23]

A. S. Karsten Flensberg, Felix von Oppen, Nature Re- views Materials 6, 944 (2021)

2021
[24]

Laubscher and J

K. Laubscher and J. Klinovaja, Journal of Applied Physics 130, 081101 (2021)

2021
[25]

M. T. Deng, S. Vaitiekenas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, K. Flensberg, J. Nygard, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, Science 354, 1557 (2016)

2016
[26]

Mourik, K

V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science 336, 1003 (2012)

2012
[27]

Nichele, A

F. Nichele, A. C. C. Drachmann, A. M. Whiticar, E. C. T. O’Farrell, H. J. Suominen, A. Fornieri, T. Wang, G. C. Gardner, C. Thomas, A. T. Hatke, P. Krogstrup, M. J. Manfra, K. Flensberg, and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 136803 (2017)

2017
[28]

A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

2001
[29]

Aguado, LA RIVISTA DEL NUOVO CIMENTO 40, 523 (2017)

R. Aguado, LA RIVISTA DEL NUOVO CIMENTO 40, 523 (2017). 8

2017
[30]

S. R. Elliott and M. Franz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 137 (2015)

2015
[31]

Leijnse and K

M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Semiconductor Science and Technology 27, 124003 (2012)

2012
[32]

T. D. Stanescu and S. Tewari, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 25, 233201 (2013)

2013
[33]

B. Jack, Y. Xie, and A. Yazdani, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 2522 (2021)

2021
[34]

R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010)

2010
[35]

Aghaee and et al

M. Aghaee and et al. (Microsoft Quantum), Phys. Rev. B 107, 245423 (2023)

2023
[36]

Pawlak, M

R. Pawlak, M. Kisiel, J. Klinovaja, T. Meier, S. Kawai, T. Glatzel, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, npj Quantum Infor- mation 2, 10.1038/npjqi.2016.35 (2016)

2016 doi
[37]

M. Ruby, F. Pientka, Y. Peng, F. von Oppen, B. W. Heinrich, and K. J. Franke, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 197204 (2015)

2015
[38]

T.-P. Choy, J. M. Edge, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195442 (2011)

2011
[39]

Nadj-Perge, I

S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, J. Li, H. Chen, S. Jeon, J. Seo, A. H. MacDonald, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yaz- dani, Science 346, 602 (2014)

2014
[40]

S. Jeon, Y. Xie, J. Li, Z. Wang, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Science 358, 772 (2017)

2017
[41]

Marra and M

P. Marra and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B 100, 220502 (2019)

2019
[42]

Pawlak, S

R. Pawlak, S. Hoffman, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 107, 1 (2019)

2019
[43]

G´ orski, J

G. G´ orski, J. Baranski, I. Weymann, and T. Domanski, Scientific Reports 8, 15717 (2018)

2018
[44]

Crawford, E

D. Crawford, E. Mascot, M. Shimizu, P. Beck, J. Wiebe, R. Wiesendanger, H. O. Jeschke, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, npj Quantum Materials 7, 117 (2022)

2022
[45]

Schneider, P

L. Schneider, P. Beck, J. Neuhaus-Steinmetz, L. R´ ozsa, T. Posske, J. Wiebe, and R. Wiesendanger, Nature Nan- otechnology 17, 384 (2022)

2022
[46]

Aghaee and et al., Nature 638, 651 (2025)

M. Aghaee and et al., Nature 638, 651 (2025)

2025
[47]

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

2023
[48]

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
[49]

Bordin, C.-X

A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, T. Dvir, F. Zatelli, S. L. D. ten Haaf, D. van Driel, G. Wang, N. van Loo, T. van Caeken- berghe, J. C. Wolff, Y. Zhang, G. Badawy, S. Gaz- ibegovic, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and G. P. Mazur, Signatures of ma- jorana protection i...

2024 arXiv
[50]

J. D. Sau and S. D. Sarma, Nature communications 3, 964 (2012)

2012
[51]

Leijnse and K

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

2012
[52]

Tsintzis, R

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

2022
[53]

Tsintzis, R

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

2024
[54]

R. S. Souto, A. Tsintzis, M. Leijnse, and J. Danon, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043182 (2023)

2023
[55]

Luethi, H

M. Luethi, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 110, 245412 (2024)

2024
[56]

Luethi, H

M. Luethi, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B 111, 115419 (2025)

2025
[57]

Alvarado, A

M. Alvarado, A. L. Yeyati, R. Aguado, and R. S. Souto, Phys. Rev. B 110, 245144 (2024)

2024
[58]

Aasen, M

D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M. Marcus, K. Flensberg, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031016 (2016)

2016
[59]

J. F. Steiner and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033255 (2020)

2020
[60]

M. I. K. Munk, J. Schulenborg, R. Egger, and K. Flens- berg, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033254 (2020)

2020
[61]

Aasen and et al

D. Aasen and et al. , Roadmap to fault tolerant quan- tum computation using topological qubit arrays (2025), arXiv:2502.12252 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[62]

Geier, R

M. Geier, R. S. Souto, J. Schulenborg, S. Asaad, M. Lei- jnse, and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023281 (2024)

2024
[63]

S. G. BRUSH, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 883 (1967)

1967
[64]

Bruus and K

H. Bruus and K. Flensberg, Many-Body Quantum The- ory in Condensed Matter Physics (Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press) (2012)

2012
[65]

Guerci and A

D. Guerci and A. Nava, Physica E: Low-dimensional Sys- tems and Nanostructures 134, 114895 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 14, 10.1007/BF02961314 (1937)

E. Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 14, 10.1007/BF02961314 (1937)

doi:10.1007/bf02961314 1937

[2] [2]

Marra, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 231101 (2022)

P. Marra, Journal of Applied Physics 132, 231101 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Vernek, P

E. Vernek, P. H. Penteado, A. C. Seridonio, and J. C. Egues, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165314 (2014)

2014

[4] [4]

Lesser and Y

O. Lesser and Y. Oreg, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55, 164001 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Pientka, L

F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 89, 180505 (2014)

2014

[6] [6]

Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

2010

[7] [7]

Pientka, L

F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155420 (2013)

2013

[8] [8]

Klinovaja, P

J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, A. Yazdani, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 186805 (2013)

work page 2013