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

TL;DR

This paper responds to a critique of previous work by demonstrating that certain trivial mechanisms can falsely pass a topological gap protocol, highlighting potential issues in topological quantum state verification.

Contribution

It clarifies that trivial bulk gap reopenings can pass the Microsoft Quantum topological gap protocol, challenging the protocol's reliability in distinguishing true topological states.

Findings

Trivial bulk gap reopenings can pass the TGP.

Trivial ZBPs can lead to false positives in topological verification.

The critique's simulation lacks detailed parameters.

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.