Reply to Antipov et al., Microsoft Quantum: "Comment on Hess et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 207001 (2023)"

Henry F. Legg,Richard Hess,Daniel Loss,Jelena Klinovaja

2024-05-06

Abstract:In this Reply we respond to the comment by Antipov et al. from Microsoft Quantum on Hess et al., PRL 130, 207001 (2023). Antipov et al. reported only a single simulation and claimed it did not pass the Microsoft Quantum topological gap protocol (TGP). They have provided no parameters or data for this simulation (despite request). Regardless, in this reply we demonstrate that the trivial bulk gap reopening mechanism outlined in Hess et al., in combination with trivial ZBPs, passes the TGP and therefore can result in TGP false positives.

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics,Superconductivity

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to respond to and clarify the doubts of Antipov et al. about the previous research of Hess et al. Specifically:

1. **Validity of Microsoft Quantum Topological Gap Protocol (TGP)**: Antipov et al. claimed that the model of Hess et al. failed to pass the Topological Gap Protocol (TGP) proposed by Microsoft Quantum. In this paper, Hess et al. refuted this view, pointing out that Antipov et al. were based on only one simulation result and did not provide any parameters or data to support their conclusion.

2. **Combination of Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism and Zero - Bias Peaks (ZBPs)**: Hess et al. showed that the combination of the Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism and Zero - Bias Peaks can pass the TGP test, resulting in TGP false positives. This means that even in non - topological states, some features may be misidentified as evidence of topological states.

3. **Applicability and Reliability of TGP**: Hess et al. further discussed multiple parameters of TGP and their definitions, and pointed out that there are significant differences between different versions of TGP. They verified that the Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism can produce false positives under different versions of TGP, thus questioning whether TGP is a sufficient and necessary condition for identifying topological superconducting phases.

### Key Content Summary

- **Doubts of Antipov et al.**: Antipov et al. reported that one simulation did not pass the TGP and claimed that this was because the mechanism proposed by Hess et al. did not meet the TGP standards.

- **Response of Hess et al.**:
- Pointed out that Antipov et al. did not provide any parameters or data to support their conclusion.
- Showed that the combination of the Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism and Zero - Bias Peaks can lead to TGP false positives.
- Emphasized that there are many Andreev Bound States (ABSs) in current experimental devices, and the Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism is possible in actual devices.

- **Limitations of TGP**: Hess et al. pointed out that Microsoft Quantum's TGP contains a large number of parameters, and there are differences between different versions of TGP, so TGP is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for identifying topological superconducting phases.

### Conclusion

By showing that the combination of the Trivial Bulk Gap Reopening Mechanism and Zero - Bias Peaks can pass the TGP test, Hess et al. proved that there may be false positive problems in TGP. Therefore, they concluded that Microsoft Quantum's TGP is not sufficient as the only standard for identifying topological superconducting phases.