Take a look at our manuscript with Isidora Araya-Day, Michael Wimmer, and @antonakhmerov.org to learn the relevance of our results to recent works in the field. 👀

arxiv.org/abs/2504.01069

The take-home messages are simple: the closer you are to the thermodynamic limit, the better; and don't place quasiparticle sinks anywhere--even in infinite systems.

his is what we answer in our latest preprint and show that finite nanowires:
1) can look trivial in the presence of Majoranas;
2) can look topological in the presence of quasi-Majoranas;
3) have different invariant values at both ends if quasiparticles leak.

But no matter how great scattering invariants are, they are still sensitive to finite-size effects. So, are there any mechanisms that lead to a biased interpretation of the scattering invariant in Majorana nanowire simulations?

Scattering invariants are pretty handy for this task because (i) they are cheap to calculate and (ii) they are computed in a transport setting with leads (and barriers if you wish).

That was also my first last-author work, and thus it's only fair to give proper kudos to Juan and Kostas for their amazing contributions!

Now go check the paper out!

Not so much an argument. But taking actions helps the most. Most people are in favor of it but think it's too much work.

Mediating the organization of repositories and kick-starting the publication packaging helps to build momentum.

Fair enough. And I tend to agree. I managed to convince all my collaborators in the last few years to publish code and data together with the preprint. And that seems a much simpler solution as it doesn't set arbitrary timelines nor impose rules.

Exactly!

Moving on, we could suggest publishers to condition submission of manuscripts to code/data availability, and allow the referees to judge reproducibility based on these additional files. Could also suggest universities to enforce publishing code/data.

I know, rather utopian.

I find this image unrealistic because you're wearing shoes at work.