Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Two coupled minimal Kitaev chains show coherent parity oscillations with matching even and odd frequencies at the Majorana sweet spot, realizing the first time-domain control of a Majorana parity qubit.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 02:29 UTC pith:2K35HNIN

load-bearing objection First coherent Rabi control of a two-site Kitaev-chain parity qubit, with matching even/odd frequencies at the sweet spot; the Majorana label is interpretive but the experiment is solid and honestly caveated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09511 v1 pith:2K35HNIN submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Majorana parity qubit in coupled minimal Kitaev chains

Francesco Zatelli , Bart Roovers , Nick van Loo , Antonio Lombardi , Juan D. Torres Luna , Sebastian Miles , Vincent P.M. Sietses , Florian J. Bennebroek Evertsz'
show 6 more authors
Pablo Cova Fari\~na Alberto Bordin Ghada Badawy Erik P.A.M. Bakkers Michael Wimmer Leo P. Kouwenhoven
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords Majorana parity qubitpoor man's Majoranaminimal Kitaev chaincoherent Rabi oscillationsquantum-dot-superconductor arrayfermion parityinter-chain coupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims to achieve the first coherent control of a Majorana qubit, encoded in the fermion parity of poor man's Majorana modes in two coupled two-site Kitaev chains. Because total fermion parity is conserved, the system splits into global even and odd manifolds; at the simultaneous Majorana sweet spot the inter-chain coupling drives Rabi oscillations between parity states with essentially equal frequencies in both manifolds, as predicted for isolated Majorana zero modes. Frequency and coherence track inter-chain coupling strength, superconducting phase difference, and quantum-dot detunings in the manner expected for short, only partially protected chains. A sympathetic reader cares because prior work identified these modes only in transport; time-domain parity control is the necessary next step toward fusion, braiding, and longer chains that could exhibit exponential protection.

Core claim

Coherent Rabi oscillations between the parity states of two coupled two-site Kitaev chains occur in both global even and odd manifolds with matching frequencies at the simultaneous Majorana sweet spot, establishing the first coherent control of a Majorana parity qubit encoded in poor man's Majorana zero modes.

What carries the argument

The effective qubit Hamiltonians Heven = (ε12 + ε34)Z + ε23 cos(φ/2)X and Hodd = (ε12 − ε34)Z + ε23 cos(φ/2)X, realized by a coupler quantum dot that mediates inter-chain coupling; equal even/odd Rabi frequencies at ε12 = ε34 = 0 diagnose isolated Majorana modes.

Load-bearing premise

Matching even and odd oscillation frequencies plus the detuning maps are taken to show that the modes are sufficiently decoupled and Majorana-like, even though the same low-energy Hamiltonian can describe any pair of near-degenerate subsystems.

What would settle it

A simultaneous sweet-spot measurement in which the even- and odd-manifold Rabi frequencies differ by more than a few percent, or in which single-dot detuning produces a longitudinal splitting that the partial-protection picture forbids, would falsify the Majorana-parity interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports coherent time-domain control of a parity qubit formed by two coupled two-site Kitaev chains (poor man's Majoranas) in an InSb/Al nanowire device. Using dispersive single-shot parity readout and baseband pulses, the authors observe Rabi oscillations between global even states (|ee>, |oo>) and, via a parity-switching dot, between global odd states (|eo>, |oe>). At the simultaneous Majorana sweet spot they find nearly equal oscillation frequencies in the two manifolds (e.g. ~113 MHz and ~118 MHz), vanishing inter-chain coupling near superconducting phase difference φ=π, and systematic dependence of frequency and contrast on coupler amplitude and multi-axis quantum-dot/hybrid-gate detunings, in agreement with the effective Hamiltonians of Eqs. (1)–(2) and full-model simulations with quasistatic charge noise. They interpret this as the first coherent control of a Majorana parity qubit encoded in minimal Kitaev chains, while emphasizing the limited protection of two-site chains.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a clear experimental milestone: moving poor man's Majorana platforms from DC transport identification to coherent parity control in the time domain. The even/odd frequency comparison, φ dependence, and multi-parameter detuning maps (Figs. 2–4, ED4–ED8) constitute a stronger operational test than zero-bias conductance alone. Strengths include extensive conditional-probability data with fits, careful Methods on readout and tune-up, explicit discussion of imperfect Majorana couplings (Methods VIII, XI), noise-averaged simulations (ED10–ED11), and public raw data/code on Zenodo. The work is a natural and valuable step toward longer chains, fusion, and braiding protocols, even though protection remains partial and coherence times are short (~tens of ns).

major comments (3)
  1. Methods VIII states that the effective low-energy Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) 'can represent any system with two weakly coupled subsystems, each with nearly degenerate even and odd ground states' and is agnostic about spatial separation. The central claim that the qubit is encoded in Majorana zero modes therefore rests on the multi-axis detuning response matching the microscopic two-site Kitaev model (Figs. 3–4, ED4–ED5, ED10–ED11), not on frequency matching alone. The main text (especially Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion) should state this hierarchy of evidence more explicitly, so that 'Majorana parity qubit' is not read as implying topological protection or uniquely proven spatial separation beyond poor man's Majoranas.
  2. Fig. 3b and Methods XI: the relative even/odd frequency difference is reported as typically ~5% and related to ε14/ε23 = μL1 μR2/(4 tL tR) at φ=0 (Eq. 22). The manuscript stops short of extracting even a model-dependent upper bound on the product of outer-Majorana overlaps from the measured (fodd−feven)/(fodd+feven) versus VC. A quantitative bound (with stated assumptions on tL,tR and residual detuning) would substantially strengthen the claim of 'small overlap between Majorana wavefunctions' and should be added or the limitation stated more sharply in the main text.
  3. Methods III documents frequent retuning of chemical potentials and hybrid-gate sweet spots before each multi-hour 2D map, plus a phase jump and charge jump between datasets. While experimental honesty is appreciated, the reproducibility of the simultaneous even/odd sweet-spot condition (the load-bearing identification of the Majorana point) is not quantified (e.g. how often both manifolds show crossings after retuning, or scatter in feven/fodd across retunings). A short statement or Extended Data panel on sweet-spot stability would make the central claim more robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract and title use 'Majorana parity qubit' and 'Majorana zero modes' while the body correctly stresses 'poor man's Majoranas' and 'limited/partial protection'. Align terminology early so non-specialists are not misled about topological protection of the idle state versus of the control operations (the Conclusion already makes this distinction well).
  2. Fig. 2b: leakage is attributed to readout SNR or residual parity switching (~5%). A brief estimate of readout fidelity from the Gaussian mixture model (ED3) would help readers separate readout error from true leakage during the pulse.
  3. Fig. 4g,h comparison to a 'conventional charge qubit': under the same conditions no oscillations are resolved when one QD per chain is detuned. Clarify whether pulse amplitudes, coupler strength, and noise environment were held identical, and whether a conventional double-dot charge qubit on the same device can show Rabi oscillations under optimized conditions (to avoid over-interpreting a null result).
  4. Table 1 / ED10–ED11: noise widths are chosen to 'qualitatively reproduce' experiment with no fit. State this more prominently when simulations are invoked in the Conclusion as reproducing the main observations.
  5. Typographical/notation: occasional OCR-like artifacts in the provided text (e.g. 'gid00880', '/uni0394'); ensure final figures and equations are clean. Define T_Rabi_2 consistently versus T2* in the main text.
  6. References: the platform papers (Dvir et al., van Loo et al., ten Haaf et al., Bordin et al.) are appropriately cited; consider also citing recent theory on dephasing of short Kitaev-chain qubits more explicitly next to the T2 discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central claim is experimental observation of parity Rabi oscillations; theory and self-citations supply independent interpretation and platform methods, not forced definitions of the signal.

full rationale

The load-bearing result is the measured conditional probabilities p(ee|ee), p(oo|ee) etc. under pulsed control (Figs. 2–4, ED7–ED9), showing coherent oscillations with nearly equal frequencies in even and odd manifolds at the simultaneous sweet spot (Fig. 3h: feven ≈ 113 MHz, fodd ≈ 118 MHz), vanishing at φ=π (Fig. 2e), and the characteristic detuning patterns of partial protection. These data stand independently of any theoretical input. The effective Hamiltonians (Eqs. 1–2, 9–10, 15–16) and the prediction of equal frequencies for isolated MZMs are taken from the literature (primarily Tsintzis et al. PRX Quantum 2024) and used only for interpretation; Methods VIII explicitly states that the low-energy form is agnostic about spatial separation and that multi-parameter detuning maps are required. Numerical simulations (ED10–ED11, Table 1) choose quasistatic noise widths to qualitatively reproduce the data with no fitting procedure and do not claim quantitative prediction. Self-citations (van Loo et al. Nature 2026 single-shot parity, Zatelli et al. Nat. Commun. 2024, Bordin et al., prior Wimmer-group theory) document the device platform, readout, and prior transport characterization of poor-man’s Majoranas; they are independently published experimental or theoretical results, not definitions that force the Rabi signal. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own fitted input or to a self-citation uniqueness theorem by construction. Mild residual score of 1 reflects only the normal presence of group self-citations for methods, which are not load-bearing for the coherence claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard condensed-matter and quantum-control assumptions plus platform-specific modeling choices. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters are mostly experimental control knobs and simulation noise widths chosen for qualitative match. The main interpretive axiom is that the observed low-energy dynamics are those of (imperfect) Majorana pairs rather than generic near-degenerate Andreev subsystems—an assumption the paper tests with even/odd and detuning diagnostics but cannot fully close for two-site chains.

free parameters (4)
  • Coupler and chain pulse amplitudes / virtual gate voltages (VC, VL1, VL2, VR1, VR2, VLH, VRH)
    Experimentally tuned to reach sweet spots and set ε23; values are device- and cooldown-specific and re-tuned before each long scan (Methods III).
  • Quasistatic Gaussian noise widths σ (Table 1: σ_μαi=1.5 μeV, σ_μC=4.5 μeV, σ_t,Δ=0.07 μeV, etc.)
    Chosen so noise-averaged simulations (ED10–ED11) qualitatively reproduce experimental decay and contrast; not independently measured.
  • Microscopic model parameters tL,tR,ΔL,ΔR,tLC,tCR,μC* (Table 1)
    Set to representative values (e.g. t=Δ=20 μeV, μC*=130 μeV) with lever-arm assumptions (αC≈0.1, αi≈0.03) to match experimental voltage scales; no global fit claimed.
  • Rabi fit parameters A, T_Rabi_2, f, ϕ, C and inverse-detuning K, V0
    Extracted from damped-cosine and f=K/(V0−VC) fits (Methods VI); standard but data-dependent.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Total fermion parity is conserved on the timescale of coherent operations; transitions between global even and odd manifolds require external quasiparticle exchange and are treated as incoherent leakage.
    Stated in introduction and used to define separate even/odd qubit Hamiltonians (Eqs. 1–2); supported by long parity lifetimes ≳8 ms vs 500 μs readout (ED3).
  • domain assumption Effective low-energy dynamics of two near-degenerate chains are captured by pairwise Majorana couplings εab (Eqs. 1–2, 6–16), with ε12,ε34 set by intra-chain (t−Δ) and ε23 by coupler-mediated hopping with cos(φ/2) phase factor.
    Standard Majorana qubit Hamiltonian (Kitaev; Tsintzis et al.); derived from microscopic H in Methods VIII.
  • domain assumption Poor man's Majorana sweet spot of a two-site chain is t=Δ with chemical potentials near zero, yielding near-zero energy and equal electron-hole weight with only partial protection against detuning.
    Leijnse & Flensberg 2012; used throughout tune-up (Fig. 1f–g, ED4).
  • domain assumption Quasistatic charge-noise approximation: Hamiltonian parameters are constant during each evolution and drawn from Gaussians between shots.
    Methods VII; standard for solid-state dephasing modeling (Ithier; Paladino reviews).
  • domain assumption Dispersive RF reflectometry of parity-dependent quantum capacitance provides single-shot discrimination of |ee⟩ vs |oo⟩ (and leakage into odd sector) after antisymmetric detuning.
    Methods IV–V; builds on van Loo et al. Nature 2026 readout.
  • standard math Linear algebra / Schrödinger evolution of finite fermionic Hamiltonians and Pauli encoding of parity operators.
    Used for Heven/Hodd and numerical U(t)=exp(−iHt/ℏ).
invented entities (1)
  • Majorana parity qubit in coupled minimal Kitaev chains (this device realization) independent evidence
    purpose: Encode a qubit in global even/odd parity manifolds of four poor man's Majorana modes with electrically tunable inter-chain coupling.
    Not a new particle; an experimental encoding of a theoretically proposed qubit. Independent evidence is the measured dual-manifold Rabi data itself; topological protection remains limited by construction for N=2.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 36709 in / 4453 out tokens · 63258 ms · 2026-07-13T02:29:22.018219+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Majorana zero modes provide a route to fault-tolerant qubits by encoding information non-locally in fermion parity. Their sensitivity to noise is expected to decrease exponentially with increasing separation between the Majoranas, a suppression known as topological protection. Kitaev chains engineered in quantum dot-superconductor arrays provide a tunable platform in which separated Majorana zero modes can emerge at the ends of the chain, even in two-site chains. These minimal-chain modes are known as poor man's Majoranas and retain characteristic Majorana properties, including near-zero energy and equal electron-hole character, but have only limited protection. A key outstanding challenge is to move beyond identifying such modes in electrical transport measurements and achieve coherent qubit control in the time domain. Here, we demonstrate a Majorana parity qubit by realizing coherent coupling between two-site Kitaev chains. Since total fermion parity is conserved, the system separates into global even and odd parity manifolds. We observe coherent parity oscillations in both manifolds with equal oscillation frequencies at the Majorana sweet spot, as predicted for isolated Majorana zero modes. We further show that the oscillation frequency and coherence depend systematically on inter-chain coupling and quantum-dot detunings, in close agreement with our model for short, partially protected chains. Our results establish the first coherent control of a Majorana qubit, encoded in the fermion parity of Majorana zero modes in minimal Kitaev chains.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. DC Conductance of X-shaped Majorana Interferometer reveals Non-Abelian Anyon Statistics

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    In an X-shaped chiral Majorana interferometer, simultaneous edge-vortex and Majorana tunneling activates the fermionic fusion channel and yields a finite isotropic DC conductance with a topological-spin offset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kitaev, A. Y. Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires.Physics-Uspekhi44, 131–136 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    Sau, J. D. & Das Sarma, S. Realizing a robust practical Majorana chain in a quantum-dot- superconductor linear array.Nature Communications3, 964 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    & Flensberg, K

    Leijnse, M. & Flensberg, K. Parity qubits and poor man’s Majorana bound states in double quantum dots.Physical Review B86, 134528 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Dvir, T.et al.Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots.Nature614, 445–450 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    ten Haaf, S. L. D.et al.A two-site Kitaev chain in a two-dimensional electron gas.Nature630, 329–334 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    S., Flensberg, K., Danon, J

    Tsintzis, A., Souto, R. S., Flensberg, K., Danon, J. & Leijnse, M. Majorana Qubits and Non-Abelian Physics in Quantum Dot–Based Minimal Kitaev Chains.PRX Quantum5, 010323 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    M., Souto, R

    Pino, D. M., Souto, R. S. & Aguado, R. Minimal Kitaev-transmon qubit based on double quantum dots.Physical Review B109, 075101 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    & Liu, C.-X

    Pan, H., Das Sarma, S. & Liu, C.-X. Rabi and Ramsey oscillations of a Majorana qubit in a quantum dot-superconductor array.Physical Review B111, 075416 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    & Loss, D

    Rainis, D. & Loss, D. Majorana qubit decoherence by quasiparticle poisoning.Physical Review B 85, 174533 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    & Kitaev, A

    Bravyi, S. & Kitaev, A. Fermionic quantum computation.Annals of Physics298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  11. [11]

    H., Stern, A., Freedman, M

    Nayak, C., Simon, S. H., Stern, A., Freedman, M. & Das Sarma, S. Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation.Reviews of Modern Physics80, 1083–1159 (2008)

    2008

  12. [12]

    & Nayak, C

    Das Sarma, S., Freedman, M. & Nayak, C. Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation.npj Quantum Information1, 15001 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    & Kane, C

    Fu, L. & Kane, C. L. Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum-spin-Hall- insulator/superconductor junction.Physical Review B79, 161408 (2009)

    2009

  14. [14]

    Ivanov, D. A. Non-Abelian Statistics of Half-Quantum Vortices inp-Wave Superconductors.Physical Review Letters86, 268–271 (2001). 36

    2001

  15. [15]

    F., Loss, D

    Luethi, M., Legg, H. F., Loss, D. & Klinovaja, J. From perfect to imperfect poor man’s Majoranas in minimal Kitaev chains.Physical Review B110, 245412 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Badawy, G.et al.High Mobility Stemless InSb Nanowires.Nano Letters19, 3575–3582 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Non-Abelian Operations on Majorana Fermions via Single-Charge Control.Physical Review Letters106, 090503 (2011)

    Flensberg, K. Non-Abelian Operations on Majorana Fermions via Single-Charge Control.Physical Review Letters106, 090503 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    S.et al.Tunneling Spectroscopy of Andreev Energy Levels in a Quantum Dot Coupled to a Superconductor.Physical Review Letters104, 076805 (2010)

    Deacon, R. S.et al.Tunneling Spectroscopy of Andreev Energy Levels in a Quantum Dot Coupled to a Superconductor.Physical Review Letters104, 076805 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Pillet, J.-D.et al.Andreev bound states in supercurrent-carrying carbon nanotubes revealed.Nature Physics6, 965–969 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Lee, E. J. H.et al.Spin-resolved Andreev levels and parity crossings in hybrid superconductor- semiconductor nanostructures.Nature Nanotechnology9, 79–84 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Recher, P., Sukhorukov, E. V. & Loss, D. Andreev tunneling, Coulomb blockade, and resonant transport of nonlocal spin-entangled electrons.Physical Review B63, 165314 (2001)

    2001

  22. [22]

    & Sch¨ onenberger, C

    Hofstetter, L., Csonka, S., Nyg˚ ard, J. & Sch¨ onenberger, C. Cooper pair splitter realized in a two- quantum-dot Y-junction.Nature461, 960–963 (2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    & Wimmer, M

    Liu, C.-X., Wang, G., Dvir, T. & Wimmer, M. Tunable Superconducting Coupling of Quantum Dots via Andreev Bound States in Semiconductor-Superconductor Nanowires.Physical Review Letters 129, 267701 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Physical Review X13, 031031 (2023)

    Bordin, A.et al.Tunable Crossed Andreev Reflection and Elastic Cotunneling in Hybrid Nanowires. Physical Review X13, 031031 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    & Sau, J

    Liu, C.-X., Pan, H., Setiawan, F., Wimmer, M. & Sau, J. D. Fusion protocol for Majorana modes in coupled quantum dots.Physical Review B108, 085437 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Steiner, J. F. & von Oppen, F. Readout of Majorana qubits.Physical Review Research2, 033255 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    van Loo, N.et al.Single-shot parity readout of a minimal Kitaev chain.Nature650, 334–339 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Zhang, Y.et al.Gate Reflectometry in a Minimal Kitaev Chain Device.PRX Quantum7, 020317 (2026). 37

    2026

  29. [29]

    Tsintzis, A., Souto, R. S. & Leijnse, M. Creating and detecting poor man’s Majorana bound states in interacting quantum dots.Physical Review B106, L201404 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Zatelli, F.et al.Robust poor man’s Majorana zero modes using Yu-Shiba-Rusinov states.Nature Communications15, 7933 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    & Fisher, M

    Alicea, J., Oreg, Y., Refael, G., von Oppen, F. & Fisher, M. P. A. Non-Abelian statistics and topological quantum information processing in 1D wire networks.Nature Physics7, 412–417 (2011)

    2011

  32. [32]

    D., Jeong, Y

    Hayashi, T., Fujisawa, T., Cheong, H. D., Jeong, Y. H. & Hirayama, Y. Coherent Manipulation of Electronic States in a Double Quantum Dot.Physical Review Letters91, 226804 (2003)

    2003

  33. [33]

    D., Petta, J

    Petersson, K. D., Petta, J. R., Lu, H. & Gossard, A. C. Quantum Coherence in a One-Electron Semiconductor Charge Qubit.Physical Review Letters105, 246804 (2010)

    2010

  34. [34]

    Bordin, A.et al.Enhanced Majorana stability in a three-site Kitaev chain.Nature Nanotechnology 20, 726–731 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    ten Haaf, S. L. D.et al.Observation of edge and bulk states in a three-site Kitaev chain.Nature 641, 890–895 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Knapp, C., Karzig, T., Lutchyn, R. M. & Nayak, C. Dephasing of Majorana-based qubits.Physical Review B97, 125404 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    V., Bauer, B., von Oppen, F

    Mishmash, R. V., Bauer, B., von Oppen, F. & Alicea, J. Dephasing and leakage dynamics of noisy Majorana-based qubits: Topological versus Andreev.Physical Review B101, 075404 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    & Flensberg, K

    Plugge, S., Rasmussen, A., Egger, R. & Flensberg, K. Majorana box qubits.New Journal of Physics 19, 012001 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Karzig, T.et al.Scalable designs for quasiparticle-poisoning-protected topological quantum computation with Majorana zero modes.Physical Review B95, 235305 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    & P´ alyi, A

    Boross, P. & P´ alyi, A. Braiding-based quantum control of a Majorana qubit built from quantum dots.Physical Review B109, 125410 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    M., Wimmer, M

    Miles, S., Zatelli, F., Bozkurt, A. M., Wimmer, M. & Liu, C.-X. Braiding Majoranas in a linear quantum dot–superconductor array: Mitigating the errors from Coulomb repulsion and residual tunneling.Physical Review B113, 085302 (2026). 38

    2026

  42. [42]

    Nature Communications12, 4914 (2021)

    Heedt, S.et al.Shadow-wall lithography of ballistic superconductor–semiconductor quantum devices. Nature Communications12, 4914 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    P.et al.Spin-Mixing Enhanced Proximity Effect in Aluminum-Based Superconduc- tor–Semiconductor Hybrids.Advanced Materials34, 2202034 (2022)

    Mazur, G. P.et al.Spin-Mixing Enhanced Proximity Effect in Aluminum-Based Superconduc- tor–Semiconductor Hybrids.Advanced Materials34, 2202034 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Wang, C.-A.et al.Operating semiconductor quantum processors with hopping spins.Science385, 447–452 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Bordin, A.et al.Probing Majorana localization of a phase-controlled three-site Kitaev chain with an additional quantum dot.Nature Communications17, 2313 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Ithier, G.et al.Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit circuit.Physical Review B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  47. [47]

    & Altshuler, B

    Paladino, E., Galperin, Y., Falci, G. & Altshuler, B. 1/fnoise: Implications for solid-state quantum information.Reviews of Modern Physics86, 361–418 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Samuelson, W.et al.Quantifying Robustness and Locality of Majorana Bound States in Interacting Systems.PRX Quantum7, 020341 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Vuik, A., Nijholt, B., Akhmerov, A. R. & Wimmer, M. Reproducing topological properties with quasi-Majorana states.SciPost Physics7, 061 (2019). 39

    2019