Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits

Aleksandr Svetogorov; Kiryl Piasotski; Mikhail Pletyukhov; Wolfgang Belzig

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-terminal Josephson junction with spin-orbit coupling can host an Andreev spin qubit, but the paper shows the direct phase-driven transition between its two lowest levels is blocked by pseudo-spin conservation, so a magnetic field…

desk verdict New selection rule for three-terminal Andreev junctions, rigorously derived for a single-mode graph but with the device-level conclusion still conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11155 v1 pith:I5VBMIBK submitted 2024-11-17 cond-mat.mes-hall

Kiryl Piasotski , Aleksandr Svetogorov , Wolfgang Belzig , Mikhail Pletyukhov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp

keywords three-terminalJosephsonjunctionAndreevspinqubitpseudo-spinconservationspin-orbitinteractionboundstatessupercurrent-mediatedcouplingselectionrule

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a three-terminal Josephson junction as a new type of Andreev spin qubit, where three superconductors connect through a spin-orbit-coupled semiconductor. The central result is a selection rule: in the idealized model, the two lowest Andreev levels that would form the qubit carry opposite values of a conserved pseudo-spin, and the current operator induced by a phase or voltage drive commutes with that pseudo-spin, so the direct transition matrix element vanishes. The paper shows that the device becomes a usable qubit once a weak magnetic field or a magnetic impurity breaks pseudo-spin conservation, generating the missing matrix elements. It also derives an effective two-qubit Hamiltonian for two junctions coupled through a superconducting transmission line, predicting supercurrent-mediated exchange-type couplings. If this picture is right, three-terminal junctions offer a route to Andreev spin qubits with substantially larger spin splitting than two-terminal devices.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the effective $12\times12$ Nambu Hamiltonian $h_{\mathrm{eff}}$ on three contact sites, obtained by integrating out three ballistic one-dimensional channels and the superconducting leads. The key symmetry is a conserved pseudo-spin operator $\Sigma$, built from the closed-loop spin-orbit phase $U_{\mathrm{SO}}$ accumulated around the triangle, with $[\Sigma,h_{\mathrm{eff}}]=0$. The current operator $J_j=(2\pi/\Phi_0)\,\partial h_{\mathrm{eff}}/\partial\varphi_j$ also commutes with $\Sigma$, so opposite-pseudo-spin states cannot be connected by phase or voltage drives; the Zeeman perturbation $b_{\mathrm{eff}}$ does not commute with $\Sigma$ and thus supplies the required pseudo-spin flip. For two qubits, the same current operators generate an inductive current-current interaction mediated by the Mooij-Schon plasma modes of a superconducting transmission line.

What would settle it

Cool a three-terminal InAs/Al junction to base temperature, bias the phases as $\varphi_1=-\varphi_2=\varphi$, $\varphi_3=0$, apply a microwave drive at the frequency matching the energy difference of the two lowest Andreev states near the proposed operating point $\varphi\approx 2\pi/3$, and measure the transition; the model predicts no resonance at zero magnetic field, so a nonzero absorption signal would falsify the pseudo-spin selection rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an idealized three-terminal Andreev spin qubit cannot be driven by the standard phase or voltage mechanism: because the conserved pseudo-spin operator $\Sigma$ of Eq. (4) commutes with both the effective Hamiltonian and each current operator $J_j=(2\pi/\Phi_0)\,\partial h_{\mathrm{eff}}/\partial\varphi_j$, the matrix element $\langle 1|J_j|2\rangle$ between the lowest pair of pseudo-spin-split Andreev levels is identically zero. The paper then shows that adding time-reversal symmetry breaking, such as an external magnetic field or magnetic impurities, makes the perturbation $b_{\mathrm{eff}}$ fail to commute with $\Sigma$, restoring the transition matrix elements, as demonstrated numerically. It also reconciles the model with the spectrum observed in a recent InAs/Al three-terminal experiment, identifies an optimal operating point where the two lowest positive-energy states have opposite pseudo-spin and large splitting, and derives the current-current interaction that gives $ZZ$ and exchange-type couplings between two qubits connected by a superconducting line.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the two-dimensional semiconductor can be replaced by three single-mode, non-interacting one-dimensional ballistic channels; if a real device has additional channels, disorder, or interactions that mix pseudo-spin, the exact selection rule and the predicted driving requirements would be modified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A pure phase or flux drive cannot perform single-qubit rotations on the idealized three-terminal Andreev spin qubit; a weak magnetic field or magnetic impurity is required to break pseudo-spin conservation.
With the Zeeman field included, the transition matrix elements between the lowest Andreev levels become nonzero and are amplified near the phase values where the degeneracy is lifted, giving a concrete driving protocol.
Two qubits coupled through a superconducting transmission line acquire an effective interaction with ZZ and exchange terms whose strengths scale as the line inductance times products of current matrix elements; combined with single-qubit drives this is enough for universal two-qubit gates.
The necessary condition for zero-energy Andreev states is that the phase points on the unit circle enclose the origin; for symmetric phase biasing this predicts zero modes only on a restricted phase interval, and their coalescence marks the boundary of the optimal qubit regime.
The optimal single-qubit regime sits near one phase value after the zero-energy crossings coalesce, where the two lowest positive-energy states have opposite pseudo-spin and the phase dispersion has local minima, reducing sensitivity to phase noise; two-qubit gates require detuning away from that point to obtain finite supercurrent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An experimental test not drawn in the paper is zero-field microwave absorption at the transition frequency between the two lowest Andreev levels: the model predicts no resonant absorption, so any nonzero signal would indicate that additional channels or interactions mix pseudo-spin.
If multichannel or interaction effects soften the selection rule in real devices, the required drive strength will be set by the pseudo-spin mixing rate, which could be characterized as an effective pseudo-spin-flip rate rather than an exact blockade.
The same pseudo-spin conservation could be used as a resource: the protected crossing gives a natural pseudo-spin or parity readout, and the magnetic-field-controlled restoration of the matrix element provides an electrically tunable qubit gate.
Because the two-qubit coupling is inductive and therefore long range, the model suggests scaling to multi-qubit arrays by connecting several three-terminal junctions as nodes of a superconducting circuit, with coupling strengths tuned through the transmission-line inductance and the current matrix elements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's genuine contribution is the pseudo-spin selection rule: in a three-terminal Josephson junction with spin-orbit coupling, the current operator commutes with a conserved pseudo-spin, so current driving cannot flip the pseudo-spin of the lowest Andreev states. That is a clean, new result, and the derivation is internally sound. The pseudo-spin construction from the closed-loop spin-orbit phase is explicit, and the accompanying Hamiltonian proof of the van Heck zero-energy condition is a nice independent check. The two-qubit coupling analysis is a reasonable bonus, and the paper is honestly written about its own limits.

The soft spot is the one the authors admit: the 2DEG plate is replaced by three single-mode 1D wires (SM Sec. I.A). In that graph, a global U_SO exists and pseudo-spin is exactly conserved. In a real two-dimensional device there are many transverse modes and many paths between contacts, each accumulating different spin rotations, plus disorder and interactions. No exact pseudo-spin exists, so the claim that current driving is blocked—and that a magnetic field or impurities are therefore required—is established only for the toy model, not for the InAs/Al device the paper cites. The authors flag this in the conclusions ('more than one conducting channel'), but they do not quantify how approximate the selection rule might be in a realistic junction. That is the main unanswered question, and it is load-bearing for the practical part of the paper.

Other, smaller issues: the optimal operating point is demonstrated at a single parameter set (Fig. 2), and the supplemental contains some garbled equations that are unreadable, which hurts reproducibility. These are minor by comparison.

Overall, this is a solid theoretical paper for work on Andreev qubits and multiterminal Josephson junctions. The selection rule is worth knowing and citing. I would send it to peer review, asking the authors to address the multichannel robustness—either by a minimal two-channel calculation or by a more careful argument about when the single-mode approximation is reliable. The central idea deserves a serious referee, and the conditional verdict is appropriate.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a low-energy theory of a three-terminal Josephson junction formed by a Rashba spin-orbit-coupled semiconducting plate contacted by three superconductors. The two-dimensional plate is replaced by an isosceles triangle of single-mode ballistic wires; integrating out the wires gives a 12x12 Nambu Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)) on the three contact sites. The authors identify a conserved pseudo-spin operator Sigma (Eq. (4)) built from the closed-loop spin-orbit rotation, show that the current operator J_j commutes with Sigma, and conclude that direct current/phase driving between the two lowest pseudo-spin-split Andreev levels is blocked, so that an external magnetic field, a magnetic impurity, or higher-lying levels are needed for qubit operation. They also rederive the van Heck et al. necessary zero-energy condition, compute Zeeman-induced transition matrix elements, and derive the effective two-qubit coupling mediated by a superconducting transmission line.

Significance. The paper's formal core is sound and useful: within the three-wire graph, [Sigma, heff]=0 and [Sigma, J_j]=0 imply an exact selection rule, and the zero-energy condition is proved independently in the Hamiltonian framework. The result provides a clear physical design principle for possible single-channel three-terminal Andreev spin qubits. The greatest value would be in the device-oriented conclusion that phase-only driving cannot flip the pseudo-spin and that symmetry-breaking ingredients are needed; however, that conclusion is only as strong as the single-mode-wire approximation. Because the paper does not quantify how multichannel, disorder, or interaction effects mix pseudo-spin in the actual 2DEG device, the experimental relevance of the exact selection rule remains an open quantitative question.

major comments (2)

[SM Sec. I.A; main text Secs. II-III] The central qubit-driving claim (Sec. III, based on Eq. (4): <1|J_j|2>=0 for opposite pseudo-spin states) is exact only for the three-wire graph obtained in SM Sec. I.A by replacing the two-dimensional semiconducting plate with three single-mode, non-interacting, ballistic channels. In a real 2DEG there are many transverse modes and many inequivalent paths between the contacts, each accumulating a different spin rotation, so a single global U_SO and a conserved Sigma do not exist; disorder and Coulomb/exchange interactions mix the modes further. As a result, the statement that an external magnetic field or magnetic impurities are 'required' to operate the device as an Andreev spin qubit is not established for the InAs/Al geometry, and the authors' own Conclusions correctly list 'more than one conducting channel' as an open issue. I request either a sharp restriction of the central claim to the single-channel model, or a quantitative estimate of the residual <1|J_j|2> (e.g., a multichannel or disorder-averaged computation) demonstrating that the blockade survives within the relevant experimental accuracy.
[SM Sec. II, Eq. (35)] The explicit demonstration of the load-bearing commutator [Sigma, heff]=0 cannot be verified from the submitted text: the displayed transformation in SM Sec. II, Eq. (35) is corrupted into an unreadable string, and the claimed generalization of Sigma to arbitrary triangular geometry is only stated, not proved. Please replace Eq. (35) with a clean derivation and give the general expression for Sigma, or explicitly impose the isosceles/equilateral restriction for which Sigma is defined in Eq. (39).

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos ('external magnetic filed', 'referred', 'the the') that should be corrected.
[References] References [31] and [32] are the same paper; one duplicate should be removed.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption 'phi_SO = 0.3 phi'_SO = 2.2, 2.6' is ambiguous; the values of phi_SO and phi'_SO should be specified separately.
[Figs. 3, 5, 6 and SM Sec. IV.B] The color legends are described inconsistently ('down-red and up-purple' in Fig. 3, 'red and blue' in the text, and 'pink' for admixture in the SM); the descriptions should be unified.
[Abstract and Sec. III] The abstract states that magnetic fields or magnetic impurities are required, but Sec. III adds that higher-energy levels can serve as intermediate states for the intra-doublet transition; the wording should be aligned so that this alternative is not lost.
[Sec. II and SM Sec. I.A] The assertion that the dominant current is transmitted through one-dimensional ballistic channels is stated without quantitative justification; adding a reference or estimate for this assumption would help the reader assess the model reduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pseudo-spin selection rule is a derived symmetry of the explicitly constructed three-site model, and the self-citation of Ref. [27] is methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the transition between the lowest pair of pseudo-spin-split Andreev levels is blocked because the current operator Jj = (2π/Φ0) ∂heff/∂φj commutes with the conserved pseudo-spin Σ, so ⟨1|Jj|2⟩ = 0 for states of opposite pseudo-spin. This is not an input but a consequence of the algebra: Σ is constructed from the closed-loop spin-orbit phase USO of the three-wire graph, the SM explicitly shows [Σ, heff] = 0, and since Σ is independent of the superconducting phases φj, differentiating the commutator gives [Σ, ∂heff/∂φj] = 0. The vanishing matrix element is therefore a derived theorem of the model, valid for all parameter values, not a fitted number or a renamed prediction. The zero-energy condition is re-derived independently in the SM (det[heff] = 0 analysis) and matches the earlier van Heck result, which is cited as prior external work, not imported as a black box. The two-qubit coupling Hamiltonian is obtained by a Schrieffer–Wolff transformation of the explicitly defined current operators and bosonic phase fluctuations, and its coupling constants are expressed in terms of computed current matrix elements rather than fitted to the target effect. The only notable self-citation is Ref. [27] (Piasotski, Pletyukhov, Shnirman), used as the Green's-function framework for constructing the effective model; however, the SM carries out the construction explicitly with all matrix elements given, so the cited method is parameter-free, does not assume the selection rule, and is not the load-bearing justification for any of the paper's conclusions. The replacement of the 2DEG by three single-mode ballistic wires is an acknowledged approximation and a validity limitation for real devices, explicitly flagged in the Conclusions ('more involved models... more than one conducting channel'), but an approximation is not circularity, since the claim is conditional on the model and the authors do not present the selection rule as an exact property of the full 2D system. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks: it reproduces the van Heck necessary condition and compares its spectrum qualitatively with the experimental observations of Ref. [14], using material-consistent parameters rather than parameters tuned to force the predicted transition block. Therefore no circular reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central selection-rule claim rests on the effective three-site model, whose main reduction is the replacement of the 2DEG plate with three ballistic wires. All parameters entering the numerics are either derived from microscopic expressions (SM Eqs. 29-32) or assigned for illustration, and the selection rule itself is independent of their values. No new physical particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the pseudo-spin operator is a derived conserved quantity with clear spectroscopic signatures.

free parameters (7)

Nearest-neighbor hopping t = 0.7 Δ0 (Fig. 2); 0.95 Δ0 (SM Fig. 2); 0.8 Δ0 (SM Fig. 4)
Derived from kF/[2mW sin(kFL)] in SM Eq. (31), but assigned specific values for the numerical spectra.
Oblique-leg hopping t' = 3t/10 (Fig. 2); 0.95 Δ0 (SM Fig. 2)
Sets the isosceles geometry; chosen by hand for the illustrated spectra.
On-site energy ε = 0.35 Δ0 (Fig. 2); 0.75 Δ0 or 0.55 Δ0 (SM)
Contact potential plus cotangent terms (SM Eq. 29); values selected for qualitative agreement with experiment.
On-site energy ε' = 3ε/10 (Fig. 2)
Set by the isosceles triangle geometry (SM Eq. 30).
Spin-orbit phase φSO = 2.2, 2.6 rad (Fig. 2); 1.6-2.6 rad (SM)
Product kR L; estimated from experimental sample size (300 nm, kR^{-1} ≈ 150 nm).
Spin-orbit phase φ'SO = φSO for equilateral, φSO/0.3 for isosceles
Product kR L' on the oblique legs.
Zeeman coupling scale b = gμBBL/(2vF,S sin²(kFL)) = 0.1
Weak-field illustrative value used in Figs. 3, 5, 6.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The 2DEG semiconducting plate is equivalent to three single-mode, non-interacting 1D ballistic channels connecting the contacts.
SM Sec. I.A states this replacement directly; no control parameter quantifies its accuracy.
domain assumption Short-junction limit: ω ≪ Δ0 and L ≪ ξ, so wire Green's functions are evaluated at ω = 0 and k0 ≈ kF.
SM Eq. (16) and surrounding text.
domain assumption Superconductors are s-wave with uniform gap Δ0 and phases φj; normal 2DEG has uniform Rashba SOI.
Main text Sec. II; SM Sec. I.
domain assumption Quasiparticle dynamics is non-interacting; Coulomb and exchange interactions are neglected.
Acknowledged in Conclusions as future work; the effective Hamiltonian is a single-particle Nambu Hamiltonian.
domain assumption Zeeman field is weak and orbital effects are neglected.
SM Sec. IV: 'assuming that their orbital effects are negligible'.
domain assumption The transmission line is a discrete LC ladder with linearly dispersing plasma modes; coupling treated via Schrieffer-Wolff.
SM Sec. V.

invented entities (1)

Pseudo-spin operator Σ (Eq. 4) independent evidence
purpose: Labels Andreev levels and enforces the selection rule that blocks current-induced transitions between the lowest pair of pseudo-spin-split levels.
Derived from the closed-loop non-abelian spin-orbit phase rather than postulated; falsifiable via protected crossings and vanishing transition matrix elements in spectroscopy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5VBMIBK

@misc{pith2026241111155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5VBMIBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11155}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce a concise theoretical framework for the equilibrium three-terminal Josephson effect in spin-orbit-interacting systems, inspired by recent experiments on an InAs/Al heterostructure [Phys. Rev. X 14, 031024 (2024)]. We develop an analytical model to capture the essential low-energy physics of the system and examine its potential as an Andreev spin qubit, while also reconciling some findings of Ref. [Phys. Rev. B 90, 155450 (2014)]. Our analysis of the transitions between the Andreev levels in the junction shows that, in an idealized scenario, the transition between the lowest pair of pseudo-spin-split Andreev levels is blocked by pseudo-spin conservation. We demonstrate that to operate the system as an Andreev spin qubit, leveraging the significant spin splitting observed experimentally, additional ingredients such as external magnetic filed or magnetic impurities are required. Finally, we apply our model to investigate the coupling between two such qubits, mediated by supercurrent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11155 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The example of the energy spectrum of the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. A schematic representation of the coupling between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. The sketch of the effective three-wire system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png]

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. The comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The points inside (and on the boundary) of the blue triangle are parametrized by affine combinations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The non-zero matrix elements between the low-lying states. Here sub-figures (a) and (b) correspond to the cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical data for an equilateral triangle ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerical data for an equilateral triangle ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. A schematic representation of the two qubit coupling through a superconducting filament, which is modeled by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Topological Josephson vortices at finite voltage bias
cond-mat.supr-con 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Applying a voltage to a topological Josephson vortex lattice squeezes the Caroli-de Gennes-Matricon spectrum, produces a breakdown voltage, and, in the model, wipes out the DC current.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

N. M. Chtchelkatchev and Y. V. Nazarov, Andreev quan- tum dots for spin manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 226806 (2003)

2003
[2]

Veldhorst, J

M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leen- stra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nature Nanotechnology 9, 981 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

Steinacker, N

P. Steinacker, N. D. Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, A. Nickl, S. Serrano, M. Candido, J. D. Ci- fuentes, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jus- sot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. God- frin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, C. C. Escott, K. D. Greve, and A. S. Dzurak, A 300 mm foundry silicon spin ...

arXiv 2024
[4]

B´ eri, J

B. B´ eri, J. H. Bardarson, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Split- ting of andreev levels in a josephson junction by spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 77, 045311 (2008)

2008
[5]

Padurariu and Y

C. Padurariu and Y. V. Nazarov, Theoretical proposal for superconducting spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B81, 144519 (2010)

2010
[6]

A. A. Reynoso, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. Feinberg, and M. Avignon, Spin-orbit-induced chirality of andreev states in josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214519 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Park and A

S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in mul- tichannel Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 96, 125416 (2017). 6

work page 2017
[8]

L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Poth- ier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin-orbit splitting of andreev states revealed by mi- crowave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011010 (2019)

2019

Show all 43 references

[9]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. de Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped superconducting spin, Nat. Phys. 16, 1103 (2020)

2020
[10]

Bargerbos, M

A. Bargerbos, M. Pita-Vidal, R. ˇZitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. J. Wesdorp, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, C. K. Andersen, A. Kou, and B. van Heck, Spectroscopy of spin-split Andreev levels in a quantum dot with superconducting leads, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, ...

2023
[11]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Diamond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg˚ ard, A. L. Yeyati, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent ma- nipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science 373, 430 (2021)

2021
[12]

Pita-Vidal, A

M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, R. ˇZitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. J. Wesdorp, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, R. Aguado, B. van Heck, A. Kou, and C. K. An- dersen, Direct manipulation of a superconducting spin qubit strongly coupled to a transmon qubit, Nat. Phys. 19, ...

2023
[13]

Pita-Vidal, J

M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, L. J. Splitthoff, A. Barg- erbos, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and C. K. Andersen, Strong tunable coupling between two distant supercon- ducting spin qubits, Nat. Phys. (2024)

2024
[14]

Coraiola, D

M. Coraiola, D. Z. Haxell, D. Sabonis, M. Hinder- ling, S. C. t. Kate, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegscheider, and F. Nichele, Spin-degeneracy break- ing and parity transitions in three-terminal josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031024 (2024)

2024
[15]

Alvarado and A

M. Alvarado and A. L. Yeyati, 2D topological matter from a boundary Green’s functions perspective: Faddeev- LeVerrier algorithm implementation, SciPost Phys. 13, 009 (2022)

2022
[16]

Zazunov, A

A. Zazunov, A. Iks, M. Alvarado, A. L. Yeyati, and R. Egger, Josephson effect in junctions of conventional and topological superconductors, Beilstein J. Nanotech- nol. 9, 1659 (2018)

2018
[17]

Alvarado, A

M. Alvarado, A. Iks, A. Zazunov, R. Egger, and A. L. Yeyati, Boundary green’s function approach for spin- ful single-channel and multichannel majorana nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 101, 094511 (2020)

2020
[18]

Pinon, V

S. Pinon, V. Kaladzhyan, and C. Bena, Surface green’s functions and boundary modes using impurities: Weyl semimetals and topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B 101, 115405 (2020)

2020
[19]

Kaladzhyan and C

V. Kaladzhyan and C. Bena, Obtaining majorana and other boundary modes from the metamorphosis of impurity-induced states: Exact solutions via the t- matrix, Phys. Rev. B 100, 081106 (2019)

2019
[20]

Komnik and S

A. Komnik and S. Heinze, Analytical results for the green’s functions of lattice fermions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 155103 (2017)

2017
[21]

Zazunov, R

A. Zazunov, R. Egger, M. Alvarado, and A. L. Yeyati, Josephson effect in multiterminal topological junctions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024516 (2017)

2017
[22]

Y. Peng, Y. Bao, and F. von Oppen, Boundary green functions of topological insulators and superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235143 (2017)

2017
[23]

Zazunov, R

A. Zazunov, R. Egger, and A. Levy Yeyati, Low-energy theory of transport in majorana wire junctions, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014502 (2016)

2016
[24]

Slager, L

R.-J. Slager, L. Rademaker, J. Zaanen, and L. Balents, Impurity-bound states and green’s function zeros as local signatures of topology, Phys. Rev. B 92, 085126 (2015)

2015
[25]

Arrachea, G

L. Arrachea, G. S. Lozano, and A. A. Aligia, Thermal transport in one-dimensional spin heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B 80, 014425 (2009)

2009
[26]

Piasotski, N

K. Piasotski, N. M¨ uller, D. M. Kennes, H. Schoeller, and M. Pletyukhov, Universal properties of boundary and in- terface charges in multichannel one-dimensional contin- uum models, Phys. Rev. B 106, 165405 (2022)

2022
[29]

Piasotski, A

K. Piasotski, A. Svetogorov, W. Belzig, and M. Ple- tyukhov, Theory of three-terminal andreev spin qubits: Supplemental material, (2024)

2024
[30]

Our convention, how- ever, is to represent it as αR ⃗k ⋅ ⃗σ, with ⃗k =kx⃗ex +ky ⃗ey, assuming the rotation of the Pauli matrices σy → −σx, σx → σy

In the semiconducting part of the system, the Rashba Hamiltonian, traditionally written in the form HR = αR(−kxσy +kyσx), describes the spin-orbit coupling in the two-dimensional electron gas. Our convention, how- ever, is to represent it as αR ⃗k ⋅ ⃗σ, with ⃗k =kx⃗ex +ky ⃗ey,...
[32]

Fauvel, J

Y. Fauvel, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Opportunities for the direct manipulation of a phase-driven andreev spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184515 (2024)

2024
[33]

Metzger, S

C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, C. Janvier, A. A. Reynoso, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, A. Levy Yeyati, and H. Poth- ier, Circuit-qed with phase-biased josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013036 (2021)

2021
[34]

F. J. Matute-Ca˜ nadas, C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg˚ ard, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, and A. L. Yeyati, Signatures of interactions in the andreev spectrum of nanowire josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197702 (2022)

2022
[35]

In partic- ular, the expression ̂Jj = 1 2 ∑α,α′Jα,α′ j γ† αγα′ shall be used to get the correct interpretation of the allowed transitions in the system

Note that these matrix elements appear in the expansion of the second-quantized current operator ̂Jj into the Bo- goliubov’s quasiparticle operatorsγα,γ † α =γ−α. In partic- ular, the expression ̂Jj = 1 2 ∑α,α′Jα,α′ j γ† αγα′ shall be used to get the correct interpretation of ...
[36]

Cerrillo, M

J. Cerrillo, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, and A. L. Yeyati, Spin co- herent manipulation in josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L022012 (2021). 7

2021
[37]

J. J. Wesdorp, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, A. Vaartjes, M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, L. J. Splitthoff, P. Krogstrup, B. van Heck, and G. de Lange, Dynamical polarization of the fermion parity in a nanowire josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 117001 (2023)

2023
[38]

P. D. Kurilovich, V. D. Kurilovich, A. E. Svetogorov, W. Belzig, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, On- demand population of andreev levels by their ionization in the presence of coulomb blockade, Phys. Rev. B 110, 184508 (2024)

2024
[39]

Zatsarynna, A

K. Zatsarynna, A. Nava, A. Zazunov, and R. Egger, Many-body quantum dynamics of spin-orbit coupled an- dreev states in a zeeman field, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214505 (2024)

2024
[41]

D. P. DiVincenzo, Two-bit gates are universal for quan- tum computation, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1015 (1995). Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits: Supplemental material Kiryl Piasotski, 1, 2,∗ Aleksandr Svetogorov,3 Wolfgang Belzig,3 and Mikhail Pletyukhov 4 1Institut f¨ ur ...

1995 arXiv
[42]

Piasotski, M

K. Piasotski, M. Pletyukhov, and A. Shnirman, Green’s functions of quasi-one-dimensional layered systems and their application to Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 109, 014201 (2024)

2024
[43]

Nevertheless, we use two-dimensional vectors to indicate the positions of the triangle’s vertices to keep notations compact

We note that this function is effectively one-dimensional as it is defined on the six links of the planar graph — three semiconducting segments forming the triangle and three superconducting segments which are attached one by one to each vertex of the triangle. Nevertheless, w...
[44]

A rigorous specification of the argument’s form requires the usage of six local coordinate systems for each link of the graph yielding a bulky expression

Again, this delta-function is effectively one-dimensional, even though its argument is given by a two-dimensional vector. A rigorous specification of the argument’s form requires the usage of six local coordinate systems for each link of the graph yielding a bulky expression
[45]

Lang, Introduction to Linear Algebra , Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2012)

S. Lang, Introduction to Linear Algebra , Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer New York, 2012)

2012
[46]

van Heck, S

B. van Heck, S. Mi, and A. R. Akhmerov, Single fermion manipulation via superconducting phase differences in multiterminal josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 90, 155450 (2014)

2014
[47]

Mooij and G

J. Mooij and G. Sch¨ on, Propagating plasma mode in thin superconducting filaments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 114 (1985)

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. M. Chtchelkatchev and Y. V. Nazarov, Andreev quan- tum dots for spin manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 226806 (2003)

2003

[2] [2]

Veldhorst, J

M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leen- stra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nature Nanotechnology 9, 981 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Steinacker, N

P. Steinacker, N. D. Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, A. Nickl, S. Serrano, M. Candido, J. D. Ci- fuentes, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jus- sot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. God- frin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, C. C. Escott, K. D. Greve, and A. S. Dzurak, A 300 mm foundry silicon spin ...

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

B´ eri, J

B. B´ eri, J. H. Bardarson, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Split- ting of andreev levels in a josephson junction by spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 77, 045311 (2008)

2008

[5] [5]

Padurariu and Y

C. Padurariu and Y. V. Nazarov, Theoretical proposal for superconducting spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B81, 144519 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

A. A. Reynoso, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. Feinberg, and M. Avignon, Spin-orbit-induced chirality of andreev states in josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214519 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Park and A

S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in mul- tichannel Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 96, 125416 (2017). 6

work page 2017

[8] [8]

L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Poth- ier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin-orbit splitting of andreev states revealed by mi- crowave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011010 (2019)

2019