Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Majorana Edge Modes as Quantum Memory for Topological Quantum Computing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dragging vortices through domain walls turns Majorana edge modes into a quantum memory that executes fault-tolerant gates.

desk verdict A serious numerical proposal for MEM-based memory with vortex-core MZM gates, but the abstract overclaims a Hadamard gate and fault tolerance, and the phase interpolation in Eq. (6) may be a genuine load-bearing problem. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08888 v1 pith:26BVDYVI submitted 2025-05-13 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-con

Jasmin Bedow , Dirk K. Morr This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords MajoranaedgemodeszerotopologicalquantumcomputingvortexbraidingIsinganyonstatisticstwo-dimensionalsuperconductormemorynon-equilibriumGreen'sfunctions
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 argues that a two-dimensional topological superconductor containing both topological and trivial domains can serve as a working platform for fault-tolerant quantum computing. In the proposed architecture, qubit states are stored in delocalized Majorana edge modes (MEMs) along domain walls, while magnetic vortices are dragged through those walls: each vortex picks up an edge mode as a vortex-core Majorana zero mode (MZM), braids it, and returns it, executing $Z$, $X$, and Hadamard gates. The authors compute the full many-body dynamics and report success probabilities of $p^E_{1,1}(t_f)=1$ for the $\sqrt{Z}$ and $Z$ gates, $p^E_{10,01}(t_f)=0.999$ for the $X$ gate, and approximately $0.125=2^{-3}$ for each of the eight outputs of a three-qubit $\sqrt{X}$/Hadamard gate, with geometric phase differences matching Ising anyon statistics. The paper claims this gives a scalable architecture in which adding one trivial domain bubble containing two vortices adds one qubit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-dependent superconducting order parameter $\Delta_{\mathbf r}(t)=|\Delta_{\mathbf r}(t)|e^{i\phi(\mathbf r,t)}$, with Majorana edge modes being the one-dimensional Majorana states living on domain walls and Majorana zero modes their point-like vortex-core counterparts. The order parameter's magnitude is suppressed to zero inside a radius $R_V$ around each moving vortex core via a $\sin^2$ profile, and its phase is interpolated between configurations by a smoothed Heaviside function $s(t,t_0,t_V)$. Driving this profile slowly enough ($t_V$ much larger than $\hbar/\Delta_t$, where $\Delta_t$ is the topological gap) adiabatically converts a delocalized MEM into an MZM without populating Caroli-de Gennes–Matricon states. The full many-body dynamics are computed from a time-resolved Green's function, and the Ising anyon statistics are read off from the gauge-invariant geometric phase difference $\Delta\phi$ between even- and odd-parity states.

What would settle it

A self-consistent time-dependent simulation of a vortex dragged across a domain wall at the same model parameters, using the actual self-consistent order parameter instead of the smoothed-Heaviside profile, should reproduce $p^E_{1,1}(t_f)=1$ for the $\sqrt{Z}$ and $Z$ gates and $p^E_{10,01}(t_f)=0.999$ for the $X$ gate; any substantial departure, or a geometric phase difference $\Delta\phi$ that is not an odd multiple of $\pi/2$, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a delocalized Majorana edge mode can be adiabatically transferred into a vortex-core Majorana zero mode and back, and that repeated transfer and braiding implements topologically protected quantum gates. The authors demonstrate this for a $\sqrt{Z}$ gate (geometric phase difference $\Delta\phi=-9\pi/2$), a $Z$ gate ($\Delta\phi=-13\pi$), an $X$ gate with odd-parity transition probability $p^E_{10,01}(t_f)=0.999$, and a three-qubit $\sqrt{X}$ gate that acts as a Hadamard gate with all eight even-parity output probabilities near $0.125$. Along the way, a qubit state initialized in the MEM occupation basis evolves adiabatically into a mixed-encoded state shared between vortex-core MZMs and their MEM partners, so the platform can define qubits using both types of Majorana states and convert between them.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme rests on the assumption that a vortex dragged through a domain wall moves adiabatically: the smoothed time-dependent order-parameter profile must transfer the Majorana state into the vortex core without creating ordinary excited states, so the reported probabilities (1, 0.999, and 0.125 per output) are not artifacts of the chosen profile and interpolation time $t_V$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qubit states can be stored in MEMs along domain walls, so the edge modes act as a quantum memory that holds the information while the vortices are out in the trivial region.
  • Vortex-core MZMs, braided by dragging vortices with an STM tip, magnetic force microscopy, or SQUID-based manipulation, execute the gate operations on those stored states.
  • The adiabatic MEM-to-MZM transfer provides a new route to initialize the many-body states of vortex-core MZMs.
  • The architecture scales: each extra trivial domain bubble containing two vortices adds one qubit, as demonstrated by the three-qubit $\sqrt{X}$/Hadamard gate with eight outputs at roughly $0.125$.
  • The reported success probabilities of at least $0.999$ lie above the two-dimensional fault-tolerance threshold, supporting the claim that these gates are topologically protected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same adiabatic transfer could be paired with measurement-only braiding protocols, where parity measurements replace some vortex world-line crossings and reduce the number of slow vortex moves needed per gate.
  • A concrete testable extension is to repeat the simulation with a self-consistently computed moving-vortex order parameter; the zero-energy spectral weight should follow the same domain-wall-to-core path if the smoothed-Heaviside model is faithful.
  • The architecture suggests a memory hierarchy in which only the vortex array needs dynamical control while the edge-mode network stays static, which could simplify experimental control in large multi-bubble arrays.
  • Chaining these gates into multi-step quantum algorithms is a natural next step given the demonstrated three-qubit superposition, and the paper's companion work already begins that program.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using a two-dimensional topological superconductor containing topological and trivial domains as a platform for topological quantum computing. Qubit states are stored in delocalized Majorana edge modes (MEMs), and vortices carrying vortex-core Majorana zero modes (MZMs) are moved through domain walls to execute gates. The authors perform full many-body time evolution and report near-unit transition probabilities for sqrt(Z), Z, and X gates, an approximately uniform 8-state superposition for a 3-qubit sqrt(X)/Hadamard-type gate, and geometric phase differences consistent with Ising anyon statistics. They also visualize the processes through non-equilibrium local density of states and Majorana world lines.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the proposed MEM-as-memory and MZM-as-gate architecture is a genuinely new and potentially scalable way to use 2D topological superconductors for quantum information processing. The paper's strengths are its direct many-body time evolution rather than fitting to expected outcomes, the use of a gauge-invariant geometric phase as a consistency check, and the concrete visualization of the gate processes. These methods give the results a concreteness that is often missing in braiding proposals. However, the physical interpretation of the engineered vortex motion and the strength of the claims ('fault-tolerant', 'topologically protected', 'Hadamard gate') need to be brought into line with what is actually demonstrated before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (6)] The time dependence of the superconducting phase in Eq. (6) is not equivalent to translating a vortex. For a vortex initially at R_i(t0) moving to R_i(t0)+a, the endpoint fields phi(r,t0) and phi(r,t0+tV) have branch cuts in different locations, and the interpolation phi(r,t) = phi(r,t0) + [phi(r,t0+tV)-phi(r,t0)] s(t,t0,tV) changes the winding number around a loop that encloses only the initial core from 1 to 0 at some intermediate s while |Delta_r(t)| stays nonzero on that loop. Such a change requires phase singularities (phase slips) not accompanied by a vanishing of |Delta|, so the instantaneous Hamiltonian can leave the single-vortex sector and close the gap. Because all reported gate probabilities and geometric phases are computed within this interpolation, the central claim that physical vortices have been braided is not yet fully supported. The adiabaticity discussion and the robustness caveat in Appendix A concern the magnitude profile only, not this phase-interpolation issue. Please either implement a phase profile that rigidly translates the vortex (for example phi(r - R_i(t)) with a consistent branch choice) or provide a numerical check that the local winding number of the order parameter is conserved throughout the trajectory.
  2. [Abstract and Discussion] The terms 'fault-tolerant' and 'topologically protected' are stronger than what the simulations demonstrate. The calculations use a fixed disorder-free Hamiltonian, a phenomenological vortex trajectory, and a single quasiparticle broadening Gamma = 0.01 t_e; there is no analysis of quasiparticle poisoning, unwanted vortex-vortex interactions, disorder, initialization or measurement errors, or a systematic study of how errors scale with system size. A single gate fidelity of p = 0.999 above a quantum error correction threshold does not by itself establish fault tolerance. Please either provide the missing error analysis or rephrase the claims to say that the architecture is a promising platform for fault-tolerant topological quantum computing rather than that fault tolerance has been achieved.
  3. [Abstract; Fig. 4 and surrounding text] The abstract claims the successful simulation of Z-, X-, and Hadamard gates, but the Hadamard gate is not directly simulated in this paper. The text around Fig. 4 presents an N=3 qubit sqrt(X)-gate and says that this operation 'can be utilized as a Hadamard gate', citing Ref. [44]; no time-dependent transition probabilities or final-state fidelities for a Hadamard operation are shown here. If the Hadamard gate is one of the central claimed results, please provide the explicit simulation or, alternatively, revise the abstract and the claims to say that a sqrt(X)/Hadamard-type gate is realized.
  4. [Fig. 2(k) and Appendix B] There is an apparent inconsistency in the geometric phase criterion. The paper states that Ising anyon statistics give Delta_phi as an odd integer multiple of pi/2, yet the Z-gate is reported with Delta_phi = -13 pi, which is an even integer multiple of pi/2 (though it is an odd multiple of pi, as expected for a double exchange). Please state the criterion separately for single exchange (sqrt(Z)) and double exchange (Z), or explain explicitly why -13 pi is consistent with the stated odd-multiple-of-pi/2 condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (2)] As written, the smoothed Heaviside function s(t,t0,tV) = sin^2((t-t0)/tV) does not reach 1 at t = t0 + tV; it reaches sin^2(1) which is about 0.708. Presumably the intended form is sin^2(pi(t-t0)/(2 tV)) or an equivalent expression with the correct boundary values.
  2. [Data Availability] The Data Availability statement contains the placeholder text '(insert link to Zenodo depository)'; the actual Zenodo link should be provided.
  3. [Section Results, X-gate paragraph] The statement that p = 0.999 is 'above the threshold for quantum error correction' cites both Ref. [32] and Ref. [53]; Ref. [32] is about controlled vortex manipulation and does not appear to contain a threshold result, so the threshold citation should be to Ref. [53] alone or to the appropriate error-correction literature.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that panels (a),(b) use a 24x24 system while panel (c) uses a 40x40 system, but the text does not discuss finite-size effects or why the system size changes mid-protocol; a brief explanation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular steps identified: all gate probabilities are computed outputs of the time-dependent Hamiltonian; the only self-citation present is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with the model Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with vortex motion encoded through Eqs. (2)-(6). The reported transition probabilities and geometric phase differences are obtained by solving the time-dependent Green's function equation, Eq. (8), and evaluating Eq. (7); they are numerical outputs, not fitted inputs. The adiabaticity condition t_V >> hbar/Delta_t is a parameter choice, not a calibration to the target gate outcomes. The Ising-anyon statement that Delta phi is an odd multiple of pi/2 is used as a consistency check, not as an input that forces the result. The self-citations [42]-[44] provide previously published numerical methods and an algorithmic interpretation; they are not uniqueness theorems and do not determine the simulated transition probabilities. The only self-referential remark is the identification of the N=3 sqrt(X)-gate as usable as a Hadamard gate via the authors' own prior preprint [44]; this is peripheral to the central result, which is the independently computed equal-superposition output. The Appendix A phase-interpolation concern raised by the skeptic (possible phase slips) is a physical-realism and adiabaticity risk, not a derivation-cycle issue, and the paper cites external Ref. [55] for robustness of the MZMs to the SCOP profile. The data-availability placeholder is a reproducibility issue, not circularity. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted value or to a self-citation, so the paper is not significantly circular; score 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation [44].

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulations rest on a specific lattice model with hand-chosen parameters, the known Ising anyon statistics of Majorana modes, and the assumption that the phenomenological moving-vortex profile captures adiabatic dynamics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • chemical potential mu = -4 t_e (Z, sqrt(Z)); -7 t_e (X, 3-qubit)
    Chosen by hand to realize the topological phase; the gate results are demonstrated only at these values.
  • Rashba spin-orbit coupling alpha = 0.9 t_e
    Model input; part of the parameter set yielding Chern number C=-1.
  • s-wave pairing magnitude Delta = 2.4 t_e
    Model input; sets the bulk gap and vortex core size scale.
  • magnetic exchange JS = 5.2 t_e (Z, sqrt(Z)); 4.4 t_e (X)
    Chosen to place domains in the topological phase; different values used in different simulations.
  • quasiparticle broadening Gamma = 0.01 t_e
    Chosen for the numerical LDOS calculation; small broadening.
  • vortex core radius R_V = 1 or 3 lattice sites
    Phenomenological vortex profile width; affects MZM localization length but stated robust.
  • vortex traversal time t_V = 100 to 500 tau_e
    Chosen much larger than hbar/Delta_t to ensure adiabatic motion; varying values used.
  • system size = 24x24 or 40x40
    Finite-size lattice; boundary effects and finite-size splitting are not thoroughly characterized.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Ising anyon statistics of MEMs and MZMs
    Used to interpret Delta_phi; a known result in the field, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Classical-spin approximation for magnetic adatoms
    Stated in Theoretical Methods: hard superconducting gap suppresses Kondo screening, so spins are treated classically.
  • domain assumption Chern number C=-1 for ferromagnetic out-of-plane alignment
    Invoked to establish the topological phase; cited to ref. [47].
  • standard math Adiabatic theorem for slow vortex motion
    Assumes slow vortex motion avoids excitations between MZM states and CdGM states; t_V >> hbar/Delta_t.
  • domain assumption Phenomenological SCOP profile approximates self-consistent vortex
    Eqs. (4)-(6); the paper cites self-consistent calculations and argues robustness, but the profile is an input.
  • domain assumption Time-dependent Green's function LDOS is proportional to STM dI/dV
    Used to visualize gate processes; cited to ref. [45].
  • standard math Geometric phase functional is gauge- and parametrization-invariant
    Used to compute Delta_phi; cited to refs. [43,51,52].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Majorana Edge Modes as Quantum Memory for Topological Quantum Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26BVDYVI

@misc{pith2026250508888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Majorana Edge Modes as Quantum Memory for Topological Quantum Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26BVDYVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08888}
}
abstract

We demonstrate that a combination of Majorana edge modes (MEMs) and Majorana zero modes (MZMs) located in the vortex cores of two-dimensional topological superconductors represent a new platform for the efficient implementation of fault-tolerant quantum gates. By calculating the full many-body dynamics of the system, we demonstrate the successful simulation and visualization of $Z$-, $X$- and Hadamard gates, with MEMs being functionalized as quantum memory. Our results open a new platform for the efficient implementation of fault-tolerant quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of 2D topological superconductors con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zero-energy Nneq for various times during a (a)- (e) √ Z- and (a)-(c),(f),(g) Z-gate process. (h) Energy- and time-resolved Nneq at the domain wall site that the vortex passes through at t = 300τe (marked by a blue arrow in (b)). (i) Majorana world lines for the Z-gate process as a function of time, obtained by projecting Nneq onto the grey axis in (a). Time-dependent transition probabilities p C,E 1,1 (t) and geome… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)-(e) Zero-energy Nneq for various times during an X-gate process. (f) Majorana world lines for the X-gate process as a function of time, obtained by projecting the zero-energy Nneq onto the x-axis. (g) Time-dependent transi￾tion probabilities p C,E n,01(t) . Parameters are (µ, α, ∆, JS, Γ) = (−7, 0.9, 2.4, 4.4, 0.01)te, RV = 1 with (a),(b) tV = 100τe and (c),(d) tV = 160τe. the odd-parity sector in [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a)-(d) Zero-energy Nneq for various times during a 3-qubit √ X-gate process. (e) Majorana world lines ob￾tained from projecting the zero-energy Nneq onto the dashed yellow line in (a). Solid (dashed) white lines denote the moving (stationary) vortices. (f) Transition …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Bedow and D

    J. Bedow and D. K. Morr, Finding hidden numbers with majorana-based topological quantum algorithms: Simulation of the bernstein-vazirani algorithm (2025), arXiv:2503.10770

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    G. C. M´ enard, S. Guissart, C. Brun, R. T. Leriche, M. Trif, F. Debontridder, D. Demaille, D. Roditchev, P. Simon, and T. Cren, Two-dimensional topological superconductivity in Pb/Co/Si(111), Nat. Commun.8, 2040 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Palacio-Morales, E

    A. Palacio-Morales, E. Mascot, S. Cocklin, H. Kim, S. Rachel, D. K. Morr, and R. Wiesendanger, Atomic- scale interface engineering of Majorana edge modes in a 2D magnet-superconductor hybrid system, Sci. Adv.5 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Kezilebieke, M

    S. Kezilebieke, M. N. Huda, V. Vaˇ no, M. Aapro, S. C. Ganguli, O. J. Silveira, S. G lodzik, A. S. Foster, T. Oja- nen, and P. Liljeroth, Topological superconductivity in a van der Waals heterostructure, Nature588, 424 (2020)

    2020

  5. [4]

    Bazarnik, R

    M. Bazarnik, R. Lo Conte, E. Mascot, K. von Bergmann, D. K. Morr, and R. Wiesendanger, Antiferromagnetism- driven two-dimensional topological nodal-point super- conductivity, Nat. Commun.14, 614 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    M. O. Soldini, F. K¨ uster, G. Wagner, S. Das, A. Al- darawsheh, R. Thomale, S. Lounis, S. S. P. Parkin, P. Sessi, and T. Neupert, Two-dimensional Shiba lattices as a possible platform for crystalline topological super- conductivity, Nat. Phys.19, 1848 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Br¨ uning, J

    R. Br¨ uning, J. Bedow, R. L. Conte, K. v. Bergmann, D. K. Morr, and R. Wiesendanger, The Non- collinear Path to Topological Superconductivity (2024), arXiv:2405.14673

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Lo Conte, J

    R. Lo Conte, J. Wiebe, S. Rachel, D. K. Morr, and R. Wiesendanger, Magnet-superconductor hybrid quan- tum systems: a materials platform for topological super- conductivity, Nuovo Cimento47, 453 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    G. C. M´ enard, A. Mesaros, C. Brun, F. Debontridder, D. Roditchev, P. Simon, and T. Cren, Isolated pairs of majorana zero modes in a disordered superconducting lead monolayer, Nat. Commun.10, 2587 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    D. Wang, L. Kong, P. Fan, H. Chen, S. Zhu, W. Liu, L. Cao, Y. Sun, S. Du, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. Gu, L. Fu, H. Ding, and H.-J. Gao, Evidence for majorana bound states in an iron-based superconductor, Science 362, 333 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Machida, Y

    T. Machida, Y. Sun, S. Pyon, S. Takeda, Y. Kohsaka, T. Hanaguri, T. Sasagawa, and T. Tamegai, Zero-energy vortex bound state in the superconducting topological surface state of fe(se,te), Nat. Mater.18, 811 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    L. Kong, S. Zhu, M. Papaj, H. Chen, L. Cao, H. Isobe, Y. Xing, W. Liu, D. Wang, P. Fan, Y. Sun, S. Du, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. Gu, L. Fu, H.-J. Gao, and H. Ding, Half-integer level shift of vortex bound states in an iron-based superconductor, Nat. Phys.15, 1181 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    S. Zhu, L. Kong, L. Cao, H. Chen, M. Papaj, S. Du, Y. Xing, W. Liu, D. Wang, C. Shen, F. Yang, J. Schnee- loch, R. Zhong, G. Gu, L. Fu, Y.-Y. Zhang, H. Ding, and H.-J. Gao, Nearly quantized conductance plateau of vor- tex zero mode in an iron-based superconductor, Science 367,...

    2020

  6. [13]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    Alicea, Y

    J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Non-abelian statistics and topological quantum information processing in 1d wire networks, Nat. Phys. 7, 412 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    B. I. Halperin, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, G. Refael, J. Alicea, and F. von Oppen, Adiabatic manipulations of Majo- rana fermions in a three-dimensional network of quantum wires, Phys. Rev. B85, 144501 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Sekania, S

    M. Sekania, S. Plugge, M. Greiter, R. Thomale, and P. Schmitteckert, Braiding errors in interacting Majorana quantum wires, Phys. Rev. B96, 094307 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Harper, A

    F. Harper, A. Pushp, and R. Roy, Majorana braiding in realistic nanowire Y-junctions and tuning forks, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033207 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Tutschku, R

    C. Tutschku, R. W. Reinthaler, C. Lei, A. H. MacDonald, and E. M. Hankiewicz, Majorana-based quantum com- puting in nanowire devices, Phys. Rev. B102, 125407 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Tanaka, T

    Y. Tanaka, T. Sanno, T. Mizushima, and S. Fujimoto, Manipulation of Majorana-Kramers qubit and its toler- ance in time-reversal invariant topological superconduc- tor, Phys. Rev. B106, 014522 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    C. S. Amorim, K. Ebihara, A. Yamakage, Y. Tanaka, and M. Sato, Majorana braiding dynamics in nanowires, Phys. Rev. B91, 174305 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    C. V. Kraus, P. Zoller, and M. A. Baranov, Braiding of Atomic Majorana Fermions in Wire Networks and Imple- mentation of the Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 203001 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    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, Milestones toward majorana-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. X6, 031016 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    Karzig, C

    T. Karzig, C. Knapp, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Bonder- son, M. B. Hastings, C. Nayak, J. Alicea, K. Flens- berg, S. Plugge, Y. Oreg, C. M. Marcus, and M. H. Freedman, Scalable designs for quasiparticle-poisoning- protected topological quantum computation with Majo- rana zero modes, Ph...

    2017

  17. [24]

    T. Zhou, M. C. Dartiailh, K. Sardashti, J. E. Han, A. Matos-Abiague, J. Shabani, and I. ˇZuti´ c, Fusion of Majorana bound states with mini-gate control in two- dimensional systems, Nat. Commun.13, 1738 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Hyart, B

    T. Hyart, B. van Heck, I. C. Fulga, M. Burrello, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Flux-controlled quantum computation with majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B88, 035121 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    J. Li, T. Neupert, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Ma- nipulating Majorana zero modes on atomic rings with an external magnetic field, Nat. Commun.7, 10395 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Sanno, S

    T. Sanno, S. Miyazaki, T. Mizushima, and S. Fujimoto, Ab Initiosimulation of non-Abelian braiding statistics in topological superconductors, Phys. Rev. B103, 054504 (2021). 7

    2021

  21. [28]

    Cheng, J

    Q.-B. Cheng, J. He, and S.-P. Kou, Verifying non-abelian statistics by numerical braiding majorana fermions, Phys. Lett. A380, 779 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    W. Chen, J. Wang, Y. Wu, J. Qi, J. Liu, and X. C. Xie, Non-abelian statistics of majorana zero modes in the presence of an andreev bound state, Phys. Rev. B 105, 054507 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    K. H. Wong, M. R. Hirsbrunner, J. Gliozzi, A. Malik, B. Bradlyn, T. L. Hughes, and D. K. Morr, Higher order topological superconductivity in magnet-superconductor hybrid systems, npj Quantum Mater.8, 31 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    J.-Y. Ge, V. N. Gladilin, J. Tempere, C. Xue, J. T. Devreese, J. Van de Vondel, Y. Zhou, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Nanoscale assembly of superconducting vortices with scanning tunnelling microscope tip, Nat. Commun.7, 13880 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    E. W. J. Straver, J. E. Hoffman, O. M. Auslaender, D. Rugar, and K. A. Moler, Controlled manipulation of individual vortices in a superconductor, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 172514 (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    B. H. November, J. D. Sau, J. R. Williams, and J. E. Hoffman, Scheme for majorana manipulation using mag- netic force microscopy (2019), arXiv:1905.09792

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Polshyn, T

    H. Polshyn, T. Naibert, and R. Budakian, Manipulating multivortex states in superconducting structures, Nano Lett.19, 5476 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    B. W. Gardner, J. C. Wynn, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, W. N. Hardy, J. R. Kirtley, V. G. Kogan, and K. A. Moler, Manipulation of single vortices in yba2cu3o6.354 with a locally applied magnetic field, Appl. Phys. Lett.80, 1010 (2002)

    2002

  29. [36]

    Kalisky, J

    B. Kalisky, J. R. Kirtley, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, I. R. Fisher, and K. A. Moler, Behavior of vortices near twin boundaries in underdoped ba(fe 1−xcox)2as2, Phys. Rev. B83, 064511 (2011)

    2011

  30. [37]

    Kremen, S

    A. Kremen, S. Wissberg, N. Haham, E. Persky, Y. Frenkel, and B. Kalisky, Mechanical control of individ- ual superconducting vortices, Nano Lett.16, 1626 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, P. Baireuther, Y. Herasymenko, I. Adagideli, L. Wang, and A. R. Akhmerov, Determin- istic creation and braiding of chiral edge vortices, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 146803 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    I. M. Fl´ or, A. Don´ ıs-Vela, C. W. J. Beenakker, and G. Lemut, Dynamical simulation of the injection of vor- tices into a majorana edge mode, Phys. Rev. B108, 235309 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Mascot, S

    E. Mascot, S. Cocklin, M. Graham, M. Mashkoori, S. Rachel, and D. K. Morr, Topological surface super- conductivity in fese0.45te0.55, Commun. Phys.5, 188 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    C. Xu, K. H. Wong, E. Mascot, and D. K. Morr, Compet- ing topological superconducting phases in fese 0.45te0.55, Phys. Rev. B107, 214514 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Mascot, T

    E. Mascot, T. Hodge, D. Crawford, J. Bedow, D. K. Morr, and S. Rachel, Many-body majorana braiding without an exponential hilbert space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 176601 (2023)

    2023

  36. [43]

    Bedow, E

    J. Bedow, E. Mascot, T. Hodge, S. Rachel, and D. K. Morr, Simulating topological quantum gates in two- dimensional magnet-superconductor hybrid structures, npj Quantum Mater.9, 99 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Bedow, E

    J. Bedow, E. Mascot, and D. K. Morr, Emergence and manipulation of non-equilibrium Yu-Shiba-Rusinov states, Commun. Phys.5, 281 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    R¨ ontynen and T

    J. R¨ ontynen and T. Ojanen, Topological superconductiv- ity and high chern numbers in 2D ferromagnetic Shiba lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 236803 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Rachel, E

    S. Rachel, E. Mascot, S. Cocklin, M. Vojta, and D. K. Morr, Quantized charge transport in chiral majorana edge modes, Phys. Rev. B96, 205131 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    A. V. Balatsky, I. Vekhter, and J.-X. Zhu, Impurity- induced states in conventional and unconventional su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 373 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    B. W. Heinrich, J. I. Pascual, and K. J. Franke, Single magnetic adsorbates on s -Wave superconductors, Prog. Surf. Sci.93, 1 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Caroli, P

    C. Caroli, P. De Gennes, and J. Matricon, Bound fermion states on a vortex line in a type ii superconductor, Phys. Lett.9, 307 (1964)

    1964

  43. [51]

    Samuel and R

    J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, General Setting for Berry’s Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 2339 (1988)

    1988

  44. [52]

    Mukunda and R

    N. Mukunda and R. Simon, Quantum Kinematic Ap- proach to the Geometric Phase. I. General Formalism, Ann. Phys.228, 205 (1993)

    1993

  45. [53]

    Raussendorf and J

    R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with high threshold in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 190504 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    E. D. B. Smith, K. Tanaka, and Y. Nagai, Manifesta- tion of chirality in the vortex lattice in a two-dimensional topological superconductor, Phys. Rev. B94, 064515 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Nagai, H

    Y. Nagai, H. Nakamura, and M. Machida, Spin-polarized majorana bound states inside a vortex core in topological superconductors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.83, 064703 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Vafek, A

    O. Vafek, A. Melikyan, M. Franz, and Z. Teˇ sanovi´ c, Quasiparticles and vortices in unconventional supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B63, 134509 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Nagai, Y

    Y. Nagai, Y. Ota, and M. Machida, Efficient numerical self-consistent mean-field approach for fermionic many- body systems by polynomial expansion on spectral den- sity, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.81, 024710 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.