majorana fermions ( mfs ) are their own anti - particles .
they have been the subject of theories for more than seven decades without an experimental signature .
however recently it has been suggested that these exotic particles can be discovered in condensed matters systems , in particular in topological superconductors ( tscs ) @xcite .
tscs are superconducting systems that admit exceptional boundary states owing to nontrivial topology associated with bulk spectra inside the quasi - particle excitation gaps .
these exceptional boundary states are coherent superpositions of electrons ( particles ) and holes ( anti - particles ) which , upon proper compositions , represent realizations of majorana states .
the presence of majorana states in tscs is robust because of their deep roots in the global properties of bulk states .
this leads to renewed efforts to reveal mfs in laboratories .
two examples of tscs are chiral p - wave superconductors in one dimension ( 1d ) and two dimensions ( 2d ) . in 1d , a chiral p - wave superconductor may accommodate a pair of majorana bound states ( mbss ) separately at its two ends @xcite .
the energy of this pair of mbss at large separation is exponentially close to the chemical potential by definition the zero energy of the superconductor , and each mbs hence provides a container for a mf to stay .
recently , systems equivalent to 1d p - wave superconductors have been proposed based on proximity effects in 2d topological insulators @xcite , or even more close to experimental reality , in 1d semiconducting quantum wires @xcite . to detect mbss in these systems @xcite , and possibly to manipulate the mfs therein ,
is of great interest in current research @xcite .
2d chiral p - wave superconductors @xcite , and equivalent systems based on the proximity effect in topological insulators @xcite or semiconductors @xcite , are hosts for chiral majorana modes ( @xmath0mms ) , which are gapless , charge - neutral edge excitations .
@xmath0mms can serve as coherent transmission channels for mfs , and hence are ideal ingredients for building mf interferometers @xcite ( see , e.g. , fig .
[ fig : setup ] ) . unlike conventional ( electronic ) interferometers
, these mf interferometers do not permit an arbitrary magnetic flux insertion due to the presence of the underlying superconductors . instead
, magnetic flux in the mf interferometers is trapped in superconducting vortex cores and remains quantized in integer multiples of a flux quantum .
in addition , each vortex here allows for one mbs @xcite , and the parity of the number of vortices gives rise to a @xmath1 -type of mf interferometry @xcite .
mm ) coupled to one or several normal metal leads .
the chiral majorana mode lives at the edge of the underlying topological superconductor ( tsc ) , which has a full pairing gap and is grounded .
the interior of the topological superconductor may accommodate a number of vortices , each permitting a magnetic flux quantum to penetrate through and containing a majorana bound state .
majorana fermions traveling in the chiral majorana mode pick up a phase that encodes ( the parity of ) the number of vortices , then scatter into normal leads . to generate charge current and noise majorana fermions interfere pairwise.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=32.0% ] +    both examples mentioned above belong to the same universality class , labeled @xmath2 in the altland - zirnbauer classification @xcite .
this means that in these systems time - reversal symmetry is broken but particle - hole symmetry ( phs ) as far as the bogoliubov - de gennes theory is concerned is present .
effectively these systems are spinless , and the phs operator can be simply expressed as @xmath3 with @xmath4 the complex conjugate operator and @xmath5 the pauli matrix reversing the electron and hole components .
we will limit ourselves to this universality class in this paper , and use the inherent phs as the only constraint to the scattering theory that will be developed here .
scattering theory in mesoscopic physics @xcite has been proven a very useful tool in dealing with electronic coherent transport phenomena .
recent developments have also shown powerful application of scattering theory to the topological classification of condensed matter @xcite , extending an approach known from adiabatic pumping processes @xcite . in this paper
we employ scattering theory to investigate interferometers built on @xmath0mms .
we pursue especially a general understanding of how mfs being exotic ( quasi- ) particles which are charge - neutral can be involved in charge transport .
for such a purpose we adopt consistently the majorana basis in our treatment , where the scattering theory of ( charge ) current and noise takes interestingly an off - diagonal form .
namely , it is the pairwise interference between transmitted mfs , instead of the self - interference of individual particles ( as for electrons or holes ) , that plays the central role in observables like current and noise .    in the following
, we will first analyze the scattering at a junction between a @xmath0 mm and a normal metal lead , which turns out to be also pairwise in the properly - chosen majorana basis .
in other words , the scattering at the junction can be significantly simplified in terms of both its physical picture and its mathematical parametrization .
next we will apply the simplified scattering picture to compute current and noise in several examples of chiral mf interferometers , including prototypes like fabry - perot @xcite , mach - zehnder @xcite and hanbury brown - twiss two - particle interferometers@xcite .
the emphasis of these calculations is placed on demonstrating the way majorana scattering amplitudes enter the expressions for current and noise , and interpreting the results in a consistent manner .
most of the examples used in this paper have been discussed in the literature , therefore we will not dwell on detailed discussions about the implications of specific results .
nevertheless our approach shows its elegance in dealing with chiral mf interferometers and in understanding them .
to address the question how mfs can be involved in charge transport , it is necessary to analyze how they are contacted with a normal ( metal ) lead which is indispensable for measurements . in the chiral mf interferometry , where the propagating pathways for mfs can be devised to serve various particular interests , junctions between @xmath0mms and normal
leads become a universal , as well as crucial , ingredient and deserve a dedicated investigation . in this section
we will focus on such a contact problem , leaving the propagation of chiral mfs to be handled in the next section with specific examples of interferometers .    to this end
we consider a @xmath0 mm tunneling - coupled to a normal lead which contains @xmath6 transmission modes around the fermi energy and is connected to an electron reservoir with chemical potential @xmath7 at its far end .. ] the junction is described by the scattering theory adapted to deal with interfaces between normal and superconducting systems @xcite .
namely , the @xmath6 transmission modes in the normal lead are artificially doubled into their electron and hole copies , which are then treated independently ( but constrained by the phs ; see below ) with different occupation functions @xmath8 where @xmath9 with @xmath10 the boltzmann constant and @xmath11 the temperature , @xmath12 with @xmath13 the chemical potential in the superconductor . throughout this paper
we assume @xmath14 is much smaller than the superconducting gap , @xmath13 is fixed by grounding the superconductor , and energy @xmath15 is always measured relative to @xmath13 . in order to remove the artificial doubling from actual physical effects , it suffices to count only contributions by states with @xmath16 .
specifically , the scattering matrix , @xmath17 , for the junction at energy @xmath15 is defined by [ eq : sm_eh ]    ^(+)(e ) + _ e^(+)(e ) + _ h^(+)(e ) +    = s(e )    ^(-)(e ) + _ e^(-)(e ) + _ h^(-)(e ) +    where @xmath18 is the annihilation operator for chiral mfs , @xmath19 is the @xmath6-vector of electron / hole annihilation operators in the normal lead and the subscripts @xmath20 always stand for the outgoing / incoming states .
the operators here are each normalized by ( the square root of ) the velocity of the corresponding mode , such that @xmath17 is a ( @xmath21)-dimensional unitary matrix as a result of quasi - particle probability current conservation .
we emphasize that @xmath17 by itself does not respect charge conservation because of the implicit presence of the tsc upon which the @xmath0 mm has to live .
often it turns out to be more convenient to work with the scattering matrix in an alternative basis the basis is called the majorana basis and hence the scattering matrix is denoted by @xmath22 which is defined as follows [ eq : sm_mf ]    ^(+)(e ) + ^(+)(e ) +    = s_m(e )    ^(-)(e ) + ^(-)(e ) +    where @xmath23 with @xmath24 the @xmath6-dimensional identity matrix acting within the space of electron or hole modes .
evidently @xmath22 is also unitary , and is related to @xmath17 by a change of basis in the normal lead : @xmath25    the inherent phs in the current problem imposes that , by definition , @xmath26 both of which apply to outgoing and incoming states separately .
the latter of the above equations implies @xmath27 which allows us to regard the scattering modes represented by @xmath28-operators as artificial majorana modes .
the scattering matrices constrained accordingly by the phs satisfy : in the electron - hole basis , @xmath29 where @xmath30 with the pauli matrix @xmath5 interchanges the flavors of electron and hole ; in the majorana basis , @xmath31 it is clear that at @xmath32 , @xmath22 becomes a real orthogonal matrix .
indeed , in the rest of this paper , we consider the low - energy limit where the energy dependence of the scattering matrices in eqs . and can be dropped ( accordingly we will also drop the energy dependence of the operators for the scattering modes ) . as a result @xmath22
is always taken to be a real orthogonal matrix with determinant @xmath33 ( i.e. @xmath34 ) .
this significantly simplifies the theory that will be developed in the following .      in this section
our goal is to understand the contact between a @xmath0 mm and a normal lead by decomposing the scattering matrix at the junction into its physical part and its ( physically ) irrelevant part .
the physical part is what is relevant to physical observables in the scattering process , and can be taken as the canonical form of the scattering matrix ; the irrelevant part by definition does not make physical contributions . to achieve this goal
we will work exclusively with scattering matrices in the majorana basis , @xmath22 , in the current section .
the advantage of working in the majorana basis is that @xmath22 , being a real orthogonal matrix in the low - energy limit , is both a faithful and a convenient representation of the scattering processes which involve mfs .
such a representation naturally includes all possible scattering events at the junction without additional constraints as eq .
( i.e. the set of @xmath22 in the low - energy limit is precisely @xmath35 , while the corresponding set of @xmath17 is only a subset of @xmath36 ) .
this greatly facilitates the decomposition that we will perform in this section .
the disadvantage of working in the majorana basis is that the  artificial " majorana modes in the normal lead , defined in eq .
, are not associated directly with the distribution of electrons / holes in the reservoir .
therefore we need to return to the electron - hole basis in the next section to compute physical observables such as average current and noise .
nevertheless we will see that the decomposition of @xmath22 pays off not only in simplifying the computations , but also in understanding physically the results .
the idea to decompose a scattering matrix into its physical and irrelevant parts is to notice that the physics of a single scattering event is unchanged under @xmath37-transformations of the ( electron ) basis for the @xmath6 degenerate modes ( separately for outgoing and incoming ones ) in the normal lead .
decompositions following this idea are conventionally referred to as polar decompositions of a scattering matrix when the physical part contains only the transmission eigenvalues @xcite . in the current problem
the same idea gets slightly more complicated by the demand of the phs , which insists that the valid transformations are of the form @xmath38 with @xmath39 . in the majorana basis , if eq .
is also imposed on the transformed operators ( with tildes ) , this means [ eq : tf_mf ] ^(+ ) = ^(+ ) , ^(- ) = ^(- ) , where @xmath40 accordingly the decomposition of @xmath22 is given by @xmath41 when @xmath42 and @xmath43 are properly chosen , @xmath44 contains a minimal number of parameters - 2\,\mbox{dim}[u(n ) ] = n$ ] , which turns out to be the actual number of parameters in @xmath44 . ] that are relevant to physical observables , and hence is the canonical form of @xmath22 .    as a consequence of the phs
, the decompositions here do not in general bring @xmath44 into a diagonal form as conventional polar decompositions do ( the diagonal form is even impossible in the electron - hole basis because the @xmath0 mm can not be coupled only to a single electron / hole mode at all ) .
instead the decompositions of @xmath22 turn out to take the form of euler decompositions : mathematically this means @xmath44 appears to be a combination of uncoupled ( 2d-)planar rotations ; physically this means the scattering of many majorana modes is essentially pairwise . in the rest of this section , we will derive such an euler decomposition first in the simplest case when @xmath45 , and then in the arbitrary @xmath6-channel case .      )
normal lead and a @xmath0 mm , in the electron - hole basis of the normal lead ( a ) , and in the properly - chosen majorana basis ( b ) . in the latter basis , only one majorana mode in the normal lead is coupled to the @xmath0 mm , the other is simply reflected with amplitude @xmath33.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0% ] +    when @xmath45 , @xmath22 is of dimension @xmath46 .
namely , @xmath22 is equivalent to a rotation in three dimensions .
such a rotation can be parametrized by three parameters , known as the euler angles , as follows [ eq : euler1 ] s_m = (    cc 1 & 0 + 0 & r ( )    ) (    cc r ( ) & 0 + 0 & 1    ) (    cc 1 & 0 + 0 & r ( )    ) , where [ eq : r0 ] r
( ) (    cc & - + &    ) (= , , ) is a planar rotation by an angle @xmath47 .
the above decomposition is exactly what is dictated by eq . .
to see this , simply notice that [ eq : r0u0 ] u_1^r ( ) u_1 = (    cc e^-i & + & e^i    ) , thus we can identify @xmath48 and @xmath49 .
namely , if we redefine the electron and hole operators by trivial gauge transformations ( in the normal lead ) @xmath50 and redefine @xmath51 according to eq
. , then the majorana scattering matrix contains one single parameter and takes the form [ eq : sm_1 ] _ m =    r ( ) & 0 + 0 & 1    .
is the canonical form of the majorana scattering matrix when @xmath45 , which says that , effectively , the @xmath0 mm @xmath18 is coupled to one ( artificial ) majorana mode @xmath52 in the normal lead , leaving the other ( artificial ) majorana mode @xmath53 to be completely reflected with amplitude @xmath33 ( see fig . [
fig : dec1 ] ) .      ) normal lead and a @xmath0 mm , in the electron - hole basis for the normal lead ( a ) , and in the properly - chosen majorana basis ( b ) . in the latter basis ,
only one majorana mode in the normal lead is coupled to the @xmath0 mm , the others are reflected in pairs and one is reflected with amplitude @xmath33.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0% ] +    when @xmath54 , there is no decomposition like eq . readily available .
nevertheless one can show that ( see appendix [ app : dec ] ) , the @xmath55-dimensional majorana scattering matrix can always be decomposed as eq . with [ eq : sm_n ] _ m = 1 , where @xmath56 couples the modes @xmath18 and @xmath52 , @xmath57 with @xmath58 couples the modes @xmath59 and @xmath60 , and the last diagonal entry @xmath33 signifies a complete reflection of mode @xmath61 .
note that by definition ( see eq . ) , @xmath62 and @xmath63 are partners derived from the same normal mode @xmath64 , that is , @xmath65 the concept of such pairs of majorana modes turns out to be fundamental in relating majorana scattering matrices to charge transport , as will be revealed in the next section
.    the above canonical form of majorana scattering matrices should be no surprise after we have understood the @xmath45 case : the @xmath0 mm @xmath18 effectively couples to a single majorana mode @xmath52  determined by the specifics of the junction  in the normal lead , which leaves its partner @xmath66  determined solely by @xmath52  to be coupled to the rest of the majorana modes in the normal lead ; @xmath66 then  picks " another ( single ) majorana mode @xmath53 to couple to , leaving in turn @xmath67 behind ; this process goes on until the last one @xmath61 is left completely alone ( see fig .
[ fig : decn ] ) . interestingly
, this re - pairing picture is a good analogy to the re - pairing of mfs that happens at the topological phase transition in the kitaev model for 1d p - wave superconductors @xcite  here , the re - pairing of majorana modes happens when a normal lead makes contact to a 2d p - wave superconductor with a chiral majorana edge mode .
in this section we compute the average current and the zero - frequency noise power in various prototypical chiral mf interferometers .    to this end
we introduce for convenience two matrices : @xmath68 , which is a diagonal matrix containing the fermi distribution functions for all incoming modes , and @xmath69 , which is another diagonal matrix containing the weights for charge current carried by electron and hole modes in lead @xmath70 ( @xmath33 for electron modes and @xmath71 for hole modes ; @xmath72 for modes that do not belong to lead @xmath70 ) .
explicitly , we define @xmath73 where @xmath74 is the total number of contacts , @xmath75 is the fermi distribution function for electrons / holes in contact @xmath70 , @xmath76 is the number of transmission modes ( without double counting ) in lead @xmath70 , @xmath77 is the empty matrix corresponding to the modes in lead @xmath78 .
we will use the following formulas from the scattering theory adapted for normal - superconducting hybrid systems @xcite : the time - averaged current at normal contact @xmath79 , @xmath80 , is given by @xmath81\;;\end{aligned}\ ] ] the average current flowing through the grounded superconducting contact is given , owing to current conservation , by ( omitting the minus sign ) @xmath82 the zero - frequency noise power , defined as @xmath83 with the current fluctuation @xmath84 , is given by @xmath85\;.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the above formulas we have used a shorthand notation @xmath86 defined as follows @xmath87 note that @xmath17 here is the full scattering matrix in the electron - hole basis , which includes @xmath74 contacts but does not explicitly include the @xmath0 mm ( see , e.g. , eq . in sec .
[ ssec : fpi1 ] ) .
the full majorana scattering matrix @xmath22 is related to @xmath17 by @xmath88    before we proceed presenting the results , we confirm that the transformations in eqs . and indeed lead to no change in physical observables .
that is , we verify that @xmath89 and @xmath90 are unchanged upon replacing @xmath17 by @xmath91 , given by @xmath92 the proof is straightforward after noticing that @xmath93 = 0\quad \mbox{and } \quad \forall \nu : [ v_{\oplus } , ( \sigma_z)_{\nu } ] = 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath94 $ ] stands for the commutator .
therefore we will adopt only the canonical form @xmath44 in the actual calculations , and also suppress the tildes from now on .
we start with the simplest setup : a single normal lead with a single mode is probing a closed @xmath0 mm , or , a chiral majorana loop ; the interior of the tsc  enclosed by the chiral majorana loop
 may accommodate @xmath95 vortices , each allowing for one mbs at zero energy .
this setup , as well as the setup that will be discussed in the next subsection ( sec .
[ ssec : fpi1 ] ) , has been discussed by law , lee and ng @xcite .
here we reformulate the problem in a consistent majorana language , with extensions that are intriguing in their own right .
we assume that the mbss are all deep inside the tsc , such that the coupling between the mbss and the @xmath0 mm or the normal lead , which exponentially decays with respect to their spatial separation , is negligible . with this assumption
the vortices are taken into account only as an additional phase @xmath96 that the chiral mf picks up after moving in a full circle , and the acquired total phase hence is @xmath97 , where the single @xmath98 comes from the berry phase , and @xmath99 , with @xmath100 the circumference of the loop , @xmath101 the group velocity of the @xmath0 mm , is the level spacing for the chiral majorana loop .    )
normal lead probing a chiral majorana loop : the left panel case ( a ) can be extended into the right panel one ( b ) , to model , e.g. , the presence of an additional point contact or scattering at two coupled mbss ( see text for details).,title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0% ] +    following our discussion in section [ ssec : scdec ] , the effective scattering process for the current example in the majorana language is pictured in fig . [ fig : l11]a , and the majorana scattering matrix is given by @xmath102 where @xmath103 , and [ eq : r1 ] r_1= with @xmath104 the ( local ) reflection amplitude of @xmath105 at the junction connecting to the still unclosed @xmath18 ( namely , @xmath106 in eq . ) .
note that the above majorana scattering matrix is implicitly energy - dependent because of the energy - dependence of @xmath107 ; it is unitary , but not necessarily real except at @xmath32 .
inserting @xmath22 into eqs . and , together with , we find the average current and the zero - frequency noise power ( auto - correlator ) to be @xmath108\delta{f}(e ) , \label{eq : il11}\\    p & = \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de\ , \bigl\{2\bigl[1-\re(r_1r_2^*)\bigr]\theta(e ) \nonumber\\      & \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad + \im(r_1r_2^*)^2\delta{f}(e)^2\bigr\ } , \label{eq : pl11}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath109+f_h(e)\bigl[1-f_h(e)\bigr ] \nonumber\\      & = -k_b t \frac{\partial}{\partial e}\bigl[f_e(e)+f_h(e)\bigr ] .
\label{eq : theta}\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that @xmath110 is positive ( negative ) definite if @xmath111 ( @xmath112 ) , zero at equilibrium , while @xmath113 is positive definite at finite temperature . as a convention
, we shall intentionally keep the formal complex conjugate of real variables ( e.g. @xmath114 ) for a reason that will be clear in a moment .
let us now examine the expressions for the current eq . and noise eq .
closely . the net current in eq .
is evidently attributed to the andreev process : an incoming electron or hole , weighted effectively by the difference of the fermi distribution functions @xmath115 , is reflected with
probability " @xmath116 $ ] , and the missing charges are absorbed by the superconducting condensate as cooper pairs . here
, negative @xmath117 means that a particle with an opposite charge with respect to the incoming particle is reflected with probability @xmath118 .
the noise in eq .
has two contributions : the first term in the curly brackets gives the thermal noise which persists at equilibrium at finite temperature ; the second term gives the shot noise which vanishes either at equilibrium , where @xmath119 , or upon total normal or andreev reflections , where @xmath120 .
the remarkable expression for the reflection  probability " , @xmath117 , highlights one essential feature of mf transport , namely , charge is always  carried " by the interference between ( a pair of ) majorana modes , even though an individual majorana mode is charge - neutral .
this can be heuristically understood as follows .
take one ( quasi - particle ) scattering state given by , in the majorana basis , @xmath121 $ ] ; in the electron - hole basis , the same state reads @xmath122 with @xmath123 and @xmath124 ; we immediately see that the current density carried by this state is @xmath125 , which is precisely the interference term between the two majorana modes .
when @xmath126 and @xmath127 are identified with the reflection amplitudes in @xmath22 , @xmath117 becomes the reflection  probability " that appears in eqs . and .
in order to stress the central importance of interference between majorana modes in this work , we will on most occasions keep formal expressions similar to @xmath117 without simplifying expressions written with formally complex conjugate but in reality real variables .      at zero - temperature and low bias ( @xmath128 ) , @xmath129 , @xmath130 , and eqs . and can be reduced to @xcite : @xmath131 the fano factor , defined as @xmath132 , is give by @xmath133 and takes the value @xmath134 if @xmath95 is even , or @xmath72 if @xmath95 is odd .    physically the two situations here are realized exactly when the chiral mf self - interferes maximally destructive or constructive upon reflection , hence a stationary state is disallowed or allowed at zero energy .
@xmath135 therefore corresponds to the reflection of a majorana mode that is completely off - resonance ( @xmath136 ) or on - resonance ( @xmath137 ) with such a stationary state @xcite . as a consequence ,
the scattering process is a total normal reflection ( @xmath138 ) or a total andreev reflection ( @xmath139 )  in either case , the shot noise vanishes .     in units of @xmath140 , as a function of @xmath141 for the setup in fig .
[ fig : l11]a .
the resonance peak for @xmath107 equal to an even multiple of @xmath98 and the ( anti - resonance ) valley for @xmath107 equal to an odd multiple of @xmath98 is a robust feature regardless of the coupling strength , parametrized by @xmath104 , between the normal lead and the @xmath0 mm .
this plot is essentially a reproduction of the results of law et al . @xcite .
the purpose of this reproduction is to facilitate comparisons with our later results.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0% ] +    for more general cases beyond the low - bias limit , where @xmath107 is allowed to vary with energy continuously between an even and an odd multiple of @xmath98 , we plot the zero - temperature differential conductance @xmath142 , as a function of @xmath141 and in units of @xmath140 , in fig . [
fig : gl11 ] with different @xmath104 .
it is clearly seen that a quantized resonance peak is established at @xmath143 ( @xmath144 ) and completely suppressed at @xmath145 ( @xmath144 ) @xcite ; decreasing @xmath104 broadens the resonance peak but does not remove such a general feature .
the present simple setup can be slightly extended by including another chiral majorana loop , labeled by @xmath146 , which couples only to the original loop @xmath18 with tunneling amplitude @xmath147 ( see fig .
[ fig : l11]b ) .
this extended setup can be used to model , for example , the effect of an additional point contact formed by confining the path of the original @xmath0 mm , or scattering upon two coupled mbss .
the computation for the extended setup requires a minimal effort , which amounts to replacing @xmath107 in eq . with @xmath148 ,
defined as @xmath149 where @xmath150 with @xmath151 the magnetic flux inside @xmath146 , and @xmath152 is the local reflection amplitude between the two chiral majorana loops .
the expressions for the average current and the noise power are unchanged from eqs . and .
in units of @xmath140 , as a function of @xmath153 with @xmath154 for the setup in fig . [
fig : l11]b .
we set @xmath155 in the upper panel and set @xmath156 in the lower panel ; for both panels @xmath157 is assumed and @xmath104 is fixed to be @xmath158 .
in the upper panel the resonance peak splits into two with their distance proportional to the energy splitting of the two coupled chiral majorana loops ; in the lower panel the resonance peak persists whenever @xmath107 is an integer multiple of @xmath98 as long as the coupling between the two chiral majorana loops is finite.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0% ] +    for simplicity we consider @xmath159 and @xmath160 .
when the coupling between the two loops are turned off , we know from previous discussions that a resonance - led total andreev reflection occurs at @xmath32 ( more generally , at @xmath161 with @xmath162 an integer ; we will focus on the energy range around zero ) . upon turning on the coupling
even with infinitesimal @xmath147  the resonance at zero energy is immediately switched off because @xmath148 has a @xmath98 shift from @xmath107 and hence @xmath126 changes sign . indeed , since the energy spectrum of the coupled loops is given by @xmath163 ( which is also equivalent to the resonance condition @xmath164 ) , we find that the resonance shifts to @xmath165 when @xmath166 .
this is in close analogy to a system in which two mbss ( e.g. at the two ends of a chiral p - wave superconducting wire ) are coupled and lifted from zero energy @xcite .
it deserves to be mentioned that if the current case is modified by setting one of the phases @xmath167 or @xmath168 to be @xmath72 and the other @xmath98 , then the resonance occurs at zero energy regardless of the coupling strength between the loops as long as it is finite .
differential conductances for both situations , @xmath169 or @xmath98 , are plotted in fig .
[ fig : gl11_2 ] .      :
the upper panel case ( a ) can be extended to the lower panel case ( b ) to model the presence of an additional point contact or two coupled mbss ( see text for details).,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0% ] +    our second example deals with the fabry - perot interferometer composed of two single - mode normal leads ( labeled by @xmath100 and @xmath170 ) probing a chiral majorana loop simultaneously .
we assume that the two normal leads are mediated only by the @xmath0 mm and other tunneling processes are negligible .
[ fig : l21]a illustrates the effective scattering in the majorana language , and the corresponding majorana scattering matrix is given by @xmath171 where @xmath172 , and @xmath173 with the subscript @xmath174 meaning that the reflection / transmission amplitude is local at the junction ( corresponding to eq . , @xmath175 , @xmath176 , for two leads separately ) . note that we have chosen a gauge such that @xmath107 belongs entirely to the lower arm .    ) and in units of @xmath140 , as a function of @xmath141 for the fabry - perot interferometer in fig .
[ fig : l21]a , where @xmath177 is fixed to be @xmath158 and the two normal contacts are equally biased . in general , resonance peaks ( anti - resonance valleys ) of the differential conductances at @xmath143 ( @xmath178 ) persist as a robust feature .
asymmetric coupling at the two junctions ( @xmath179 ) results in unbalanced resonance peaks in @xmath180 and @xmath181 , while the resonance peak in @xmath182 remains quantized at @xmath183 .
particularly when one of the junctions is shut off ( e.g. @xmath184 ) , the result returns to what is shown in fig .
[ fig : gl11 ] , where the resonant - andreev - reflection is completely local .
this plot is again essentially a reproduction of the results in ref .
@xcite , presented here for the purpose of comparison with later results.,scaledwidth=40.0% ]    the average current and the zero - frequency noise power are given by @xmath185\delta{f}_{l } , \label{eq : il21}\\    & p_{ll}= \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de\ , \bigl\{2\bigl[1-\re(r_{l1}r_{l2}^*)\bigr ] \theta_{l } \nonumber\\      & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + \im(r_{l1}r_{l2}^*)^2\delta{f}_l^2 \nonumber\\      & \quad + \frac{1}{2}t_{lr}\bigl[\theta_{r } - \theta_{l } + \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a , b = e , h}({f}_{la}-{f}_{rb})^2\bigr]\bigr\ } , \label{eq : pal21}\\    & p_{lr}= p_{rl } \nonumber\\      & = \frac{e^2}{h } \int_{e\ge0 } de\ , ( -\frac{1}{2})\re(t_{lr}r_{l2}^*t_{rl}r_{r2}^*)\delta{f}_{l}\delta{f}_{r } , \label{eq : pcl21}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath186 .
@xmath187 and @xmath188 can be obtained by interchanging subscripts @xmath100 and @xmath170 in the expressions for @xmath189 and @xmath190 .    in the presence of multiple normal contacts ,
it is particularly interesting to look at the average current @xmath191 flowing through the grounded superconducting contact . assuming the two normal contacts here are equally biased ( @xmath192 ) , @xmath191 is simply given by @xmath193 \delta{f } , \label{eq : isl21}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have used the explicit expressions of the reflection amplitudes .
an immediate observation based on the above result is that the resonance peak in the differential conductance @xmath182 at @xmath194 remains quantized at @xmath183 regardless of the coupling of the two normal leads to the @xmath0 mm ( see fig .
[ fig : gl21 ] ) .
formally the expression for @xmath189 ( or @xmath187 ) is the same as eq . in the single lead case , meaning that one contact does not contribute to the average current at the other contact regardless of the electron / hole occupation in either contact .
naively this can be seen as a result of the charge neutrality of the @xmath0 mm that bridges two contacts . a more precise interpretation , however
, is that the majorana scattering states sourced from different contacts ( e.g. @xmath195 transmitted from contact @xmath170 and @xmath196 ) are not phase coherent when only single - particle scattering is considered , therefore can not lead to finite average current according to our discussion in sec .
[ ssec : l11 ] .
this statement will be clear after we further examine the cross - correlation between the two contacts .
the charge - current cross - correlator @xmath197 ( or @xmath198 ) , given by eq . , is manifestly non - vanishing at low temperature and low bias if , and only if , both contacts are biased ( @xmath199 ) and exchange of majorana states is allowed ( @xmath200 ) .
this is despite the fact that the mediating @xmath0 mm carries no charge current by itself .
indeed , the non - vanishing cross - correlation here is entirely due to those scattering events that involve two - particle exchange and permit coherence between scattering states from different sources , and hence is entirely the  exchange noise " .
such an exchange contribution is irrelevant for the average current but present in noise .
meanwhile , the absence of other types of noise ( e.g. thermal noise , partition noise ) in the cross - correlator again highlights the essential role that the interference between majorana modes plays in charge transport .
in contrast to the cross - correlation , the auto - correlation for contact @xmath100 , given by eq . , contains both the equilibrium thermal contribution ( the first term in the kernel ) and nonequilibrium contributions ( the rest two terms ) .
contact @xmath170 manifests itself in @xmath190 only away from equilibrium ( except for modifying @xmath177 to @xmath201 ) , which is clearly different from a conventional normal - metal - superconductor - normal - metal device@xcite .       of the integral for the cross - correlator @xmath197 in eq .
, excluding the factor due to fermi distribution functions , as a function of @xmath202 .
the coupling between the normal leads and the @xmath0 mm is assumed to be symmetric .
situations with various coupling strength are plotted . between resonance ( @xmath143 ) and anti - resonance ( @xmath178 )
points ( cf . fig .
[ fig : gl21 ] ) , @xmath203 changes sign.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0% ] +    at zero - temperature and low bias ( @xmath204 , equal for both normal contacts ) , the average current and the zero - frequency noise power can be reduced to @xcite : @xmath205 the fano factors , for individual normal leads defined as @xmath206 , and for the total noise power ( or equivalently , for the superconducting contact ) defined as @xmath207 , where @xmath208 , are given by @xmath209    we see that the even / odd @xmath95 cases represent rather distinct processes . for
the conductance and fano factors of both contacts @xmath100 and @xmath170 are equal .
this indicates that the statistics of the electron transport is in fact identical at these leads and the process consists of a random sequence of crossed andreev reflection processes @xcite .
in contrast for @xmath95 odd , electrons are drawn at different rates from both contacts but such as to generate a perfect stream of cooper pairs entering the superconductor noiselessly ( @xmath210 ) . meanwhile , the cross - correlators change from being positive for even @xmath95 to being negative for odd @xmath95 , indicating increasing importance of local andreev reflections .    for a more general picture of the scattering
processes beyond the low - bias limit , we plot in fig .
[ fig : pl21 ] the cross - correlation noise power spectrum ( the kernel of the integral in eq . excluding the factor due to fermi distribution functions ) @xmath211 as a function of @xmath107 . by using the explicit expressions of the scattering amplitudes ,
one finds clearly that @xmath203 changes sign between resonance ( @xmath212 ) and anti - resonance ( @xmath213 ) points ( cf .
[ fig : gl21 ] ) .
the interpretation for this sign change is in fact the same as our preceding discussion for the low - bias cases .       in units of @xmath140 , as a function of @xmath153 with @xmath154 for the extended fabry - perot interferometer in fig .
[ fig : l21]b .
we assume @xmath155 , @xmath157 and @xmath214
. situations with various @xmath147 between the two loops are plotted . when @xmath215 , this setup is simply two copies of the single - lead setup in fig .
[ fig : l11 ] ; when @xmath216 , this setup reduces to the original fabry - perot interferometer in fig .
[ fig : l21]a , with @xmath217 playing the role of @xmath107 in the original setup . for the case of @xmath218 and @xmath157
, @xmath191 does not depend on @xmath147 at symmetric coupling ( @xmath219 ) , and its expression reduces to eq .
( see also fig .
[ fig : gl21]c ) with @xmath107 substituted by @xmath220 .
the plot shows that quite generally , @xmath182 peaks at resonance ( upon eigenstates of the coupled loops ) points , and is suppressed at anti - resonance points.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]     as a function of @xmath202 for the extended fabry - perot interferometer in fig .
[ fig : l21]b . in the upper panel
we assume @xmath155 , and in the lower panel @xmath156 ; for both panels we take @xmath157 and @xmath214 .
situations with various transmission amplitudes @xmath147 between the two loops are plotted . clearly between resonance and anti - resonance points ( cf .
[ fig : gl21_2 ] ) , @xmath203 changes sign.,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    as in the single lead case discussed in sec .
[ ssec : l11 ] , the present setup can be extended in the same way by including another chiral majorana loop which couples to the original one ( see fig . [
fig : l21]b ) . for the extended setup ,
the following substitutions for the scattering amplitudes need to be made @xmath221 , \label{eq : rl1_2}\\    & r_{r1 } = z\bigl[r_{r0}+r_{l0}e^{i(\varphi+\varphi^\prime)}-r(e^{i\varphi^\prime}+r_{l0}r_{r0}e^{i\varphi})\bigr ] , \label{eq : rr1_2}\\    & t_{lr } = zt_{l0}t_{r0}t\,e^{i(\varphi+\varphi^\prime ) } , \label{eq : tlr_2}\\    & t_{rl } = -zt_{l0}t_{r0}t , \label{eq : trl_2}\\    & z\equiv \bigl[t^2+(r - r_{l0}e^{i\varphi})(r - r_{r0}e^{i\varphi^\prime})\bigr]^{-1}. \label{eq : z_2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the above amplitudes reduce to eq . at @xmath222 , and to eqs . - at @xmath223 , @xmath216 .
we plot the differential conductance @xmath182 and the cross - correlation noise power spectrum @xmath203 for the present case in fig .
[ fig : gl21_2 ] and [ fig : pl21_2 ] , respectively .
similar to our previous discussions , the coupling between the two loops ( assumed again to be of the same circumferences ) leads to split resonance peaks if @xmath155 , or a halved period if @xmath224 , for the differential conductance @xmath182 ; the sign of @xmath203 shows consistently changes between resonance and anti - resonance points upon eigenstates of the coupled loops .      )
normal lead probing a chiral majorana loop .
only the ( single ) majorana mode coupled to the chiral majorana loop can  feel " the phase picked up in the loop.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=30.0% ] +    our previous two examples deal with single - mode ( @xmath45 ) leads , which are simple but nevertheless reveal most of the interesting physics .
the real strength of the decompositions discussed in sec .
[ sec : contact ] , however , becomes obvious only in dealing with multi - mode ( @xmath54 ) leads . in this section
we start again with a single - lead setup similar to that in sec .
[ ssec : l11 ] but with @xmath54 ( see fig . [
fig : l1n ] ) .    according to sec .
[ ssec : mcdec ] , the majorana scattering matrix for this setup can be written as @xmath225 where @xmath226 , @xmath126 is given by eq . , and @xmath227 and @xmath228 with @xmath229 in accordance with eq . .
note that the basis for this scattering matrix is reordered from the original one defined by eq . , to be @xmath230 , where one should keep in mind that @xmath231 and @xmath232 are the partners associated with the @xmath233-th original mode as given by eqs . and .    in terms of the elements of this scattering matrix
the average current and the zero - frequency noise power ( auto - correlator ) are : @xmath234\delta{f } , \label{eq : il1n}\\    p & = \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de\ , \bigl\{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}2\bigl[1-\re(r_ir_{i+1}^*)\bigr]\theta \nonumber\\      & \qquad + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\bigl[1-\re(r_ir_{i+1}^*)^2+\im(r_ir_{i+1}^*)^2\bigr]\delta{f}^2 \nonumber\\      & \qquad + \sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\re(t_ir_{i-1}^*t_ir_{i+1}^*)\delta{f}^2\bigr\}. \label{eq : pl1n}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    clearly the total average current is a sum of contributions from all @xmath6 modes individually : @xmath235 and @xmath236 are reflection amplitudes for @xmath231 and @xmath232 and their interference term @xmath237 registers the outgoing current contributed by mode @xmath233 ; scattering between different modes ( i.e. @xmath238 ) does not appear directly in the average current similar to the case of scattering between contacts in a fabry - perot interferometer . the noise power , by contrast , contains not only the auto - correlation of each individual mode ( the first two terms in eq . ;
eq . ) , but also the cross - correlation between different modes ( the last term in eq .
eq . ) .    in general ,
@xmath239 are parameters determined specifically by the details of the junction between the normal lead and the tsc , and do not necessarily lead to quantized conductance regardless of the value of @xmath107 .
this is certainly an important consequence of the presence of multiple modes in the normal lead .
an interesting exception @xcite , however , is the zero - temperature low - bias conductance when @xmath240 and @xmath95 is odd , where one finds @xmath241 , thus @xmath242 and @xmath243 .
wimmer et al .
@xcite have proposed this exceptional case to be a robust transport signature for detecting a mbs , with which a zero - energy eigenstate of the chiral majorana loop can be identified .       multi - mode normal leads coupled to a single chiral majorana loop . in each lead ,
only one majorana mode is coupled to the chiral majorana loop , and hence is involved in transmission between contacts ( any direct tunneling between contacts is ignored ) ; the other majorana modes ( omitted in this illustration ) are locally , pairwise reflected.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0% ] +    as the final example for the fabry - perot - type interferometers making use of a single @xmath0 mm , we discuss a generic setup with @xmath74 normal contacts each admitting @xmath244 ( @xmath245 ) transmission modes in the lead coupled to the @xmath0 mm ( see fig.[fig : lkn ] ) .
the majorana scattering matrix for this setup is given by @xmath246 where @xmath247 and @xmath248 and @xmath249 with @xmath58 take the values according to eq . for contact @xmath79 .
the subscript @xmath174 again means that the reflection / transmission amplitude is local at the junction and contains no @xmath107-dependence .
the basis here for each contact is ordered the same way as in .
the average current and the zero - frequency noise powers are given by @xmath250\delta{f}_{\alpha } , \label{eq : ilkn}\\    & p_{\alpha\alpha}= p_{\alpha\alpha}^{(0 ) } + \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de\,\cdot \nonumber\\ & \quad\sum\limits_{\beta\ne\alpha}\frac{1}{2}t_{\alpha\beta}\bigl[\theta_{\beta } - \theta_{\alpha } - \delta{f}_{\alpha}^2 + \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{a , b = e , h}({f}_{{\alpha}a}-{f}_{{\beta}b})^2\bigr ] , \label{eq : palkn}\\    & p_{\alpha\beta } = \frac{e^2}{h } \int_{e\ge0 } de\ , ( -\frac{1}{2})\re(t_{\alpha\beta}r^*_{2(\alpha)}t_{\beta\alpha}r^*_{2(\beta)})\delta{f}_{\alpha}\delta{f}_{\beta } , \nonumber\\    & \hspace{60mm}(\alpha\ne\beta ) \label{eq : pclkn}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath251 takes the form of the single - lead auto - correlator .
a remarkable fact in these results is that in the presence of many modes , the @xmath107-dependence of the average current or the auto - correlators , carried only by @xmath252 and @xmath253 , can be overwhelmed by the large @xmath107-independent contributions from @xmath248 and @xmath249 ( @xmath58 ) at imperfect interfaces between normal leads and the tsc ; the cross - correlators , however , preserve the @xmath107-dependent terms as their sole contributions , hence will optimally manifest the information embedded in the transmission of @xmath0 mm .    without performing further quantitative analysis for this example
, we simply point out two recurrent messages in the above general results : the average current at one contact is _ only _ contributed by the interference between pairs of majorana modes in the corresponding lead , and the current cross - correlation between two contacts is _ purely _ due to coherent exchange of two mfs sourced from the two contacts .
these two messages together recapitulate the crucial role that interference between majorana modes plays in charge transport .
mms is simply an identity matrix . in both setups
the outgoing leads are connected to electron reservoirs that are grounded.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=48.0% ] +    so far we have been focusing on the junctions between normal leads and a single @xmath0 mm , and the fabry - perot - type interferometers which comprise only such junctions .
alternatively another type of junctions , composed of two @xmath0mms with opposite chirality and connected to a chiral normal channel , can be used to build interferometers of the mach - zehnder type @xcite or the hanbury brown - twiss type @xcite ( see fig . [
fig : mz_hbt ] ) .
the junctions between two @xmath0mms and a chiral normal channel are reflectionless and can be described by two - times - two scattering matrices @xcite , where the two components at the normal side correspond to electron and hole modes or two majorana modes depending on the basis .
assuming again the scattering matrix at the junction is energy - independent at low enough energy , the majorana scattering matrix belongs to @xmath254 owing to the phs .
it follows that by employing the same strategy as presented in sec .
[ ssec : gen ] , the canonical form of the scattering matrix , in the properly chosen majorana basis , is simply an identity matrix . in other words ,
the junction effectively splits or joins , without mixing , two @xmath0mms .
this certainly simplifies significantly our discussions which we present below in terms of specific examples .
the mach - zehnder interferometer illustrated in fig .
[ fig : mz_hbt]a has been investigated by fu and kane @xcite , and akhmerov , nilsson and beenakker @xcite .
here we simply reformulate the problem in the majorana language we have been speaking so far , to echo some general features of majorana transport that have been discussed in the previous part of this paper .    the majorana scattering matrix for the mach - zehnder interferometer(see fig . [ fig : mz_hbt]b ) , defined as @xmath255 is effectively given by @xmath256 where we can choose a specific gauge such that @xmath257 with @xmath258 , and @xmath259 .    the average current and zero - frequency noise power can be easily obtained : @xmath260\;\delta{f}_{l } , \label{eq : is_mz}\\    & p_{ll } = \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de \ ; \theta_l , \label{eq : pll_mz } \\    & p_{rr } = \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de \ ; \bigl[\theta_l + \im(t_1t_2^*)^2\,\delta{f}_l^2\bigr ] , \label{eq : prr_mz } \\    & p_{lr } = p_{rl } = -\frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de \ ; \re(t_1t_2^*)\;\theta_l\ , , \label{eq : pc_mz}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath261 and @xmath262 when the explicit expressions of @xmath263 and @xmath264 are taken .
clearly the outgoing current in eq . appears to be the interference between two @xmath0mms  the transmission
probability " @xmath265 has a physically identical interpretation as the reflection
 probability " @xmath117 appearing in eq . .
an obvious difference , however , between the present setup and a fabry - perot - type interferometer is that contact @xmath100 here indeed provides coherent sources for the mf pairs instead of single ones that are drained by contact @xmath170 . as a direct consequence , the cross - correlator in eq .
involves only the thermal fluctuation in contact @xmath100 , while all the other contributions ( e.g. partition or exchange noise ) are absent due to the one - way nature of the present setup .
the hanbury brown - twiss interferometer shown in fig .
[ fig : mz_hbt]c has recently been investigated by strbi , belzig , choi , and bruder @xcite . here
we reformulate the problem , again in the majorana language .    the majorana scattering matrix for the hanbury brown - twiss interferometer(see fig . [ fig : mz_hbt]d ) , defined as @xmath266 is effectively given by @xmath267 in this case we can choose a specific gauge such that @xmath268 , and @xmath269 .
the average current and zero - frequency noise power are given by @xmath270\,,\quad ( \beta = u , d ) \label{eq : pbb_hbt } \\
& p_{ud } = p_{du } \nonumber\\    & = \frac{e^2}{h}\int_{e\geq 0 } de \ ; ( -\frac{1}{2})\re(t_{ul}t^*_{ur}t_{dr}t^*_{dl})\delta{f}_{l}\delta{f}_{r } \ , , \label{eq : pud_hbt}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and all other cross - correlators are zero . taking the explicit expressions
, we have @xmath271 .    as pointed out by strbi _
@xcite , a remarkable fact in the present setup is that although the average current at the two drains @xmath272 and @xmath2 vanishes identically , the cross - correlation between the two contacts is in general non - zero .
this fact , in the majorana language , can be interpreted as follows : the mf pair in either drain are necessarily from different sources , and are therefore phase incoherent for single - particle scattering which the average current measures  the incoherence between mf pairs implies vanishing average current ; two - particle scattering allows coherence between mf pairs in both drains , and is included in the measurement of noise power  the coherent injection of two electrons / holes from the two sources leads to non - vanishing cross - correlation between current in the two drains .
the scenario here bears close analogy to the @xmath45 fabry - perot interferometer discussed in sec .
[ ssec : fpi1 ] , where the average current contributed by a foreign contact is always zero but the cross - correlation between two contacts is in general non - vanishing .
the underlying physics in both scenarios , as it has been for essentially all our examples , boils down to the central importance of interference in the charge transport with majorana modes .
in this work we emphasized a scattering approach using a global majorana basis .
both the normal state leads and the system which intrinsically carries chiral majorana states are described in the same basis . as a consequence , from a purely technical particle scattering point of view ,
majorana scattering problems are rather similar to scattering problems in normal mesoscopic structures .
however , majorana modes are neutral and carry neither charge nor ( electric ) current .
in contrast to normal scattering problems the charge and current operators are not diagonal in the majorana scattering states . therefore , unlike in normal systems , current is not determined by transmission probabilities of majorana fermions .
we have shown that charge and current appear due to interference of pairs of majorana modes . for averages of single particle quantities , like charge and current , to be non - vanishing , interfering majorana modes must necessarily have originated in the same contact .
in contrast , in two particle quantities , like the current noise , two - particle exchange permits interference of two majorana particles even if they originate from different leads .
the physics of neutral excitations is certainly an important field of future research .
it can be expected that the theory of majorana particles represents an instructive example of this development .
we thank c. w. j. beenakker , p. w. brouwer , a. r. akhmerov , m. wimmer , i. martin and a. f. morpurgo for discussions .
m. b. thanks the kitp of beijing and santa barbara for hospitality where part of this work was carried out .
the work is supported by the swiss national science foundation , the european marie - curie training network nanoctm and the swiss national center of competence in research on quantum science and technology .
we prove in this appendix that for an arbitrary matrix @xmath273 , one can find a decomposition [ eq : appdeco ] _
n=              , such that @xmath274 and @xmath275 satisfy @xmath276 where @xmath277 ( @xmath278 ) stands for the @xmath162-th row of @xmath42 ( @xmath43 ) , and the @xmath279@xmath280@xmath279 matrix @xmath281 is defined as @xmath282    before we start the proof , we point out that @xmath42 ( @xmath43 ) satisfying eq . ( eq . ) is nothing but @xmath42 ( @xmath43 ) given in eq . written in a differently ordered basis ( the purpose of such reordering is to make the central matrix at the right - hand - side of eq .
taking a compact block - diagonal form ) .
this can be shown by using explicitly @xmath283 hence we have , from eq .
, @xmath284 where @xmath285 and @xmath286 are @xmath6-dimensional unitary matrices ( cf . eqs . and ) .
it is then straightforward to see that by rearranging , for @xmath287 , the @xmath233-th row and column to the ( @xmath288)-th and the ( @xmath289)-th row and column to the ( @xmath290)-th , the rearranged @xmath42 and @xmath43 satisfy eqs . and .          where both @xmath292 and @xmath293 are normalized @xmath279-dimensional row vectors and @xmath294 is a @xmath279@xmath280@xmath279 matrix .
we assume @xmath295 ( namely , the upper - left corner element of the matrix @xmath291 is not @xmath296 ) , such that both @xmath292 and @xmath293 are well - defined up to an irrelevant sign .
then we construct two matrices @xmath297 by setting @xmath298 and choosing @xmath299 and @xmath300 with @xmath301 so that the orthogonality and eqs . and are all satisfied ( which can be easily shown to be always possible ) .
we find @xmath302 where @xmath303 .
it remains to show that @xmath42 and @xmath43 defined above satisfy eqs . and .
to this end we observe @xmath310 , hence eqs . and are equivalent to @xmath311 = 0,\quad [ \mathcal{w } , \lambda ] = 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath94 $ ] stands for the commutator .
we also keep in mind that , by construction , all factor matrices at the right - hand - sides of eqs . and satisfy the above commutation relations .
this immediately verifies the validity of our construction , and thus completes the proof .