Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Anisotropy of PbTe nanowires with and without a superconductor

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bare PbTe nanowires show a reproducible 45-degree g-factor anisotropy, and adding a Pb superconductor shifts that anisotropy in a gate-tunable way.

desk verdict Reproducible 45° anisotropy in PbTe nanowires is a real advance, but the pure-Zeeman g-factor extraction is strained by the paper's own anti-crossing data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04345 v1 pith:PVGBZI4E submitted 2025-01-08 cond-mat.mes-hall

Zonglin Li , Wenyu Song , Shan Zhang , Yuhao Wang , Zhaoyu Wang , Zehao Yu , Ruidong Li , Zeyu Yan
show 12 more authors
Jiaye Xu Yichun Gao Shuai Yang Lining Yang Xiao Feng Tiantian Wang Yunyi Zang Lin Li Runan Shang Qi-Kun Xue Ke He Hao Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords PbTenanowiresg-factoranisotropyspin-orbitinteractionsuperconductingproximityeffectquantumdotsgatetunabilityMajoranazeromodesorbital
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

The paper tries to establish that the magnetic anisotropy of PbTe nanowires can be made reproducible, and that it changes in a controlled way once the wire is coupled to a superconductor. In bare PbTe quantum dots, the electron g-factor (how strongly a spin responds to a magnetic field) has its minimum and maximum along directions 45 degrees off the wire axis, not along the axis, and the same pattern repeats across devices. In PbTe-Pb hybrids, the direction in which the superconducting gap closes most easily under a magnetic field moves away from that 45-degree reference, and the move can be adjusted with gate voltage. The paper attributes the deviation to spin-orbit interaction and orbital effects set by charge transfer between Pb and PbTe. If this is right, the platform offers a reproducible spin geometry plus an electrical knob for spin-orbit effects, which matters for efforts to engineer Majorana zero modes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the angle-resolved magnetic-field rotation, read through two complementary observables. In bare PbTe, a quantum dot's conductance peaks split under the field, and because the stability diamonds are quantized single-particle levels rather than Coulomb charging diamonds, the splitting is converted directly into a g-factor using a lever arm of about 2.7 meV/V. In PbTe-Pb hybrids the same rotation is read through the softness of the induced superconducting gap (zero-bias and near-zero-bias conductance). The explanatory mechanism is a competition: the anisotropic Zeeman effect alone would keep the weakest-gap direction at 45° to the wire axis, the spin-orbit interaction pushes it toward 0° (the wire axis), and out-of-plane field components bring in an orbital effect that dominates the gap closure. Gate voltage and the Pb0.99Eu0.01Te interlayer thickness tune the spin-orbit strength through charge transfer.

What would settle it

Repeat the fixed-field rotation on the same PbTe dot for two different orbital levels, or on a dot small enough that charging energy is visible; if the direction of minimum splitting moves with the orbital state or with gate voltage while the magnetic field direction is fixed, the peak-splitting readout is not a clean single-particle g-tensor and the reported 45° pattern would not be the intrinsic anisotropy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With disorder reduced, PbTe nanowire quantum dots show a reproducible anisotropic Zeeman response: rotating a fixed-magnitude magnetic field through three orthogonal planes maps out a g-factor that runs from 0 to 21, with its minimum and maximum at roughly ±45° to the [100] wire axis rather than along any crystal axis. The same directional pattern appears across multiple devices, though the magnitude varies with wire thickness. When PbTe is proximitized with Pb through a Pb0.99Eu0.01Te interlayer, the anisotropy of the induced superconducting gap deviates from that bare-PbTe reference: the direction of softest gap under an in-plane field sits at angles such as 9°, 21°, 22°, and 33° to the wire axis in different devices, and for one device the angle moves from 32° to -27° as the gate voltage is changed. The paper attributes this deviation to spin-orbit interaction and orbital effects arising from charge transfer between Pb and PbTe, with interlayer thickness and gates controlling the coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The g-factor map rests on assuming that the field-induced conductance-peak splitting is a Zeeman effect of a spin-degenerate single-particle level, with charging energy and orbital effects negligible; the authors themselves note that level repulsion may underestimate the g-factor near 45°, so the pattern's sharp minimum is the most assumption-sensitive feature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In bare PbTe nanowires, the direction of minimum and maximum g-factor is pinned at about ±45° to the [100] wire axis and repeats across devices.
  • Coupling PbTe to Pb rotates the magnetic anisotropy of the induced superconducting gap away from that 45° reference, with the rotation angle differing from device to device.
  • The rotation angle is gate-tunable, with one device shifting from 32° to -27°, showing that spin-orbit coupling in the proximitized region can be controlled electrostatically.
  • The Pb0.99Eu0.01Te interlayer thickness acts as a second control over the spin-orbit interaction strength.
  • For fields with out-of-plane components, orbital effects dominate the gap closure, so the spin-orbit/Zeeman competition is best studied with in-plane fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test beyond this paper would be to grow PbTe nanowires along a different crystal direction: if the 45° pattern follows the crystal lattice rather than the wire shape, it is an intrinsic band-structure fingerprint.
  • The gate-driven shift of the gap anisotropy could serve as a practical proxy for spin-orbit strength in future device work, but it has not been independently cross-checked against, for example, weak-antilocalization or Josephson critical-field measurements.
  • If the shift angle really tracks charge transfer between Pb and PbTe, systematic interlayer-thickness sweeps could locate an optimum spin-orbit regime for Majorana experiments, a knob the paper opens up but does not fully explore.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic study of magnetic-field anisotropy in PbTe nanowire quantum dots and PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowires. In bare PbTe devices, the authors observe level splittings that depend on the direction of a fixed-magnitude magnetic field, and they convert these splittings into g-factors that are claimed to vary between 0 and 21 with extrema at approximately ±45° to the wire axis ([100]). This pattern is reported as reproducible across three devices. In PbTe-Pb hybrid devices, the paper shows that the direction of minimum zero-bias conductance in the xz plane deviates from 45°, falling in the range 9°-33° across devices, and that this direction shifts with side-gate voltage (for example, 35° to 26° in device N and 32° to -27° in device O). The deviation is attributed to spin-orbit interaction induced by the superconductor and to orbital effects for out-of-plane fields. The manuscript includes SEM and STEM characterization of all devices and states that raw data and processing codes are available at a Zenodo DOI.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would establish a useful empirical benchmark for PbTe-based hybrid quantum devices: reproducible anisotropy in nominally clean PbTe nanowires and gate-tunable modification of that anisotropy upon coupling to a superconductor. This addresses a known problem in PbTe devices, where earlier work showed device-to-device variation in g-factor anisotropy. The structural characterization of all nine devices and the public data repository are concrete strengths that support reproducibility. However, the quantitative interpretation of the bare-wire data as a pure g-tensor is undermined by the coexistence of spin-orbit-induced avoided crossings in the same levels, and the paper's own Supplemental Material concedes that level repulsion may distort the extraction near the claimed extrema. This weakens the load-bearing quantitative claim, although the qualitative observations of reproducible splitting anisotropy and gate-tunable gap anisotropy remain potentially valuable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Fig. 2(c-d) and SM Fig. S3] The g-factor extraction assumes that the conductance-peak splitting equals the Zeeman energy, ΔE = g μB B. However, the same data show avoided crossings attributed to spin-orbit interaction (Fig. 2(b) cyan arrows; Fig. 2(f); Fig. S2). For two spin-orbit-coupled levels, the observed splitting is expected to follow Δ = sqrt[(g μB B)^2 + Δ_SO^2], where Δ_SO is the spin-orbit gap. The minimal observed splitting therefore does not directly give the minimal g-factor; it gives the minimum of a combined function that also depends on the orientation-dependent Δ_SO. The SM Fig. S3 caption admits that the g-factor 'may be underestimated near 45° due to level repulsion,' which is exactly the direction claimed as a g-factor extremum. Underestimation is not the only possible distortion: anisotropic Δ_SO can shift the apparent extrema and can produce a nonzero apparent g where the true Zeeman term vanishes. The central claim that '±45° ... [is] the direction of minimum and maximum g-factors' is therefore not established by the presented analysis. The authors should either fit a coupled-level model that extracts both g and Δ_SO orientation dependence, or explicitly reframe the abstract and conclusion in terms of measured splitting anisotropy rather than g-tensor anisotropy.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'Building upon' and Fig. 3(e)] The interpretation of the hybrid-device data uses the bare-wire 45° direction as the unperturbed baseline: 'The 23° deviation is attributed to the presence of the superconductor.' If the bare-wire baseline itself is contaminated by spin-orbit level repulsion, as argued above, then the apparent deviation in the hybrid cannot be unambiguously assigned to superconductor-induced spin-orbit coupling. Part or all of the deviation could reflect the same orientation-dependent spin-orbit physics already present in the bare wire, or could be an artifact of extracting a minimum from a gap-closure spectrum rather than from a clean Zeeman split. To support the attribution, the authors should quantify how the bare-wire splitting anisotropy would affect a gaplike observable (for example, by modeling the zero-bias conductance minimum with a two-level Hamiltonian including isotropic and anisotropic spin-orbit terms), and show that the observed hybrid angles are inconsistent with the bare-wire model alone.
  3. [Fig. 2(d), SM Fig. S3(c), SM Fig. S4(e), and Fig. 4(b)] The polar plots of g-factor and the reported hybrid minimum-conductance angles are presented without error bars or uncertainty estimates. The peak-finding procedure in SM Fig. S2(d) discards 'noise or jumps' subjectively, and the conductance-averaging method for the hybrid angle determination is not accompanied by a measure of how sensitive the extracted angle is to the chosen bias window or the smoothing procedure. Since the paper's main claim is reproducibility across devices, the authors should provide at least a quantitative estimate of the angular uncertainty for each extracted direction and for the g-factor values. Without this, the reader cannot distinguish genuine device-to-device consistency from the robustness of a curve-minimum routine.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, first paragraph] The statement that the diamonds in Fig. 2(a) 'correspond to quantized levels formed in the PbTe quantum dot, rather than Coulomb charging energy' is central to the argument that charging energy is negligible, but the text does not explain how the diamonds are distinguished from Coulomb diamonds. A clearer discussion of the level-spacing extraction and its consistency with the lever-arm calibration would strengthen the paper.
  2. [Section 2, last paragraph and SM Fig. S3] The g-factor conversion relies on a single lever arm α ~ 2.7 meV/V estimated from the diamond size. Since the g values scale linearly with α, an uncertainty in α directly changes the reported g range. Please provide an uncertainty estimate for α and state whether α was verified independently (for example, by bias spectroscopy at different gate voltages).
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 2(e)] The even-odd peak-height pattern and the negative differential conductance in device B are noted as unexplained. This is acceptable if the effect is peripheral, but the text should clarify whether the spin-degeneracy assumption used for the splitting analysis could be affected by these features in the zero-field spectrum.
  4. [Footnotes 39-40] The orientation ambiguity of ±z, ±x, and ±y is acknowledged, but the polar plots in Fig. 2(d) and SM S4(e) distinguish positive and negative directions. Since the directions are physically equivalent up to a global sign in a time-reversal-invariant system, the plots should either explicitly state that the two lobes are related by symmetry or indicate which sign convention is used.
  5. [Section 3, Fig. 4] The claim of gate tunability of spin-orbit interaction is based on the angular shift of the minimum of an averaged conductance curve. The paper does not discuss whether the gate voltage could also change the dot confinement potential, the tunnel coupling, or the induced gap, all of which could affect the position of the conductance minimum. A control measurement showing that the gap size or the zero-field spectroscopy remains similar at the different gate voltages would make the interpretation more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the g-factor anisotropy and hybrid deviations are directly measured, and self-citations to prior device work are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental observables, not derived quantities that reduce to their inputs. The bare-PbTe g-factor map is obtained by converting measured conductance-peak splittings into energy using a lever arm determined from diamond size, then dividing by μ_B B (main text, Fig. 2(c-d)). The anisotropy angles (minima and maxima at ±45° to the wire axis) are read directly from the rotation data, not produced by a model fitted to those same angles. The hybrid-device claim compares the measured angle of minimum gap conductance in PbTe-Pb wires (22°, 9°, 21°, 33°, etc.) to the independently measured bare-PbTe angle (45°), so the deviation is not defined into existence by any fit. Gate tunability is likewise presented as observed shifts in the measured angle with VSG. The self-citations to the authors' earlier work on reducing disorder in PbTe nanowires (Ref. [15]) support device fabrication and quality, but they do not supply a premise that forces the anisotropy result; the reproducibility claim rests on data from three bare devices and multiple hybrid devices shown in the main text and Supplemental Material. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is renamed as new. The reviewer's concern that the peak-splitting analysis assumes pure Zeeman splitting while the same data show spin-orbit anti-crossings is a substantive physical assumption about the data analysis, and the Supplemental Material itself notes that g may be underestimated near 45° due to level repulsion. However, this is a question of measurement systematic or model validity, not circular reasoning: the extracted quantity is not defined in terms of the claimed conclusion, and the paper does not use the conclusion to justify the extraction. Therefore no circular step satisfying the required standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no microscopic model. The experimental interpretation rests on assumptions about how conductance-peak splittings and gap minima track the underlying g-tensor and gap closure, listed above.

free parameters (1)
  • lever arm alpha = ~2.7 meV/V
    Used to convert gate-voltage peak splitting into energy and extract g-factors in Fig. 2(d); estimated from diamond size in Fig. 2(a), with no uncertainty stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Conductance peaks in the PbTe quantum dots are spin-degenerate single-particle levels with negligible charging energy.
    Invoked in Fig. 2(a) to interpret diamonds as quantum dot levels rather than Coulomb diamonds, and used to derive g-factors from peak splitting. Supported only indirectly by the large dielectric constant and prior reports.
  • domain assumption At fixed |B|=0.3 T, the peak splitting is purely Zeeman and linear in B within each direction.
    Used to build polar plots in Fig. 2(d); the SM notes level repulsion can underestimate g near 45 degrees, so the assumption is acknowledged to be imperfect.
  • domain assumption The direction of minimum zero-bias conductance in the PbTe-Pb devices indicates the direction where the induced superconducting gap closes most easily.
    Used in Figs. 3(e-h) and 4 to define the anisotropy angle and compare with the 45-degree g-factor axis. No microscopic transport model is given to exclude other mechanisms.
  • domain assumption For magnetic fields in the xz plane, orbital effects of the Pb film are negligible, so any deviation from the PbTe anisotropy must come from spin-orbit interaction.
    This claim, stated in the main text, is central to attributing the 23-degree deviation to spin-orbit interaction. No quantitative estimate of orbital depairing is provided.
  • domain assumption The x and z axes are assigned according to growth along [100] and STEM inspection; the sign ambiguity noted in footnote 39 does not affect the angle magnitudes.
    The coordinate system defines all angles in the paper; sign uncertainty changes orientation labels but not the absolute angle values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropy of PbTe nanowires with and without a superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVGBZI4E

@misc{pith2026250104345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropy of PbTe nanowires with and without a superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVGBZI4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04345}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the anisotropic behaviors in PbTe and PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowires. In previous studies on PbTe, wire-to-wire variations in anisotropy indicate poor device control, posing a serious challenge for applications. Here, we achieve reproducible anisotropy in PbTe nanowires through a substantial reduction of disorder. We then couple PbTe to a superconductor Pb, and observe a pronounced deviation in the anisotropy behavior compared to bare PbTe nanowires. This deviation is gate-tunable and attributed to spin-orbit interaction and orbital effect, controlled by charge transfer between Pb and PbTe. These results provide a guidance for the controlled engineering of exotic quantum states in this hybrid material platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Device introduction. (a-b) Brief schematics of PbTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Anisotropy in PbTe-Pb nanowires. (a) Gap spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Gate-tunable anisotropy in PbTe-Pb. (a) Gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Ma- jorana fermions and a topological phase transition in semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Helical liquids and Majorana bound states in quantum wires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Z. Cao, D. E. Liu, W.-X. He, X. Liu, K. He, and H. Zhang, Numerical study of PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowires for engineering Majorana zero modes, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085424 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Jiang, S

    Y. Jiang, S. Yang, L. Li, W. Song, W. Miao, B. Tong, Z. Geng, Y. Gao, R. Li, F. Chen, Q. Zhang, F. Meng, L. Gu, K. Zhu, Y. Zang, R. Shang, Z. Cao, X. Feng, Q.-K. Xue, D. E. Liu, H. Zhang, and K. He, Selective area epi- taxy of PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowires on a lattice-matched substrate, Phys. Rev. Materials 6, 034205 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    J. Jung, S. G. Schellingerhout, M. F. Ritter, S. C. ten Kate, O. A. van der Molen, S. de Loijer, M. A. Verheijen, H. Riel, F. Nichele, and E. P. Bakkers, Selective area growth of PbTe nanowire networks on InP, Advanced Functional Materials 32, 2208974 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Z. Geng, Z. Zhang, F. Chen, S. Yang, Y. Jiang, Y. Gao, B. Tong, W. Song, W. Miao, R. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Zhang, F. Meng, L. Gu, K. Zhu, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, X. Feng, Q.-K. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Observation of Aharonov-Bohm effect in PbTe nanowire networks, Phys. Rev. B 105, L241112 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Gomanko, E

    M. Gomanko, E. J. de Jong, Y. Jiang, S. G. Schellinger- hout, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and S. M. Frolov, Spin and Orbital Spectroscopy in the Absence of Coulomb Block- ade in Lead Telluride Nanowire Quantum Dots, SciPost Phys. 13, 089 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    S. C. ten Kate, M. F. Ritter, A. Fuhrer, J. Jung, S. G. Schellingerhout, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, H. Riel, and F. Nichele, Small charging energies and g-factor anisotropy in PbTe quantum dots, Nano Letters22, 7049 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, W

    Z. Zhang, W. Song, Y. Gao, Y. Wang, Z. Yu, S. Yang, Y. Jiang, W. Miao, R. Li, F. Chen, Z. Geng, Q. Zhang, F. Meng, T. Lin, L. Gu, K. Zhu, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, X. Feng, Q.-K. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Proximity effect in PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowire Josephson junctions, Phys. R...

    2023

  2. [10]

    W. Song, Y. Wang, W. Miao, Z. Yu, Y. Gao, R. Li, S. Yang, F. Chen, Z. Geng, Z. Zhang, S. Zhang, Y. Zang, Z. Cao, D. E. Liu, R. Shang, X. Feng, L. Li, Q.-K. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Conductance quantization in PbTe nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 108, 045426 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Y. Gao, W. Song, S. Yang, Z. Yu, R. Li, W. Miao, Y. Wang, F. Chen, Z. Geng, L. Yang, Z. Xia, X. Feng, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q.-K. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Hard superconducting gap in PbTe nanowires, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 038502 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Y. Wang, F. Chen, W. Song, Z. Geng, Z. Yu, L. Yang, Y. Gao, R. Li, S. Yang, W. Miao, W. Xu, Z. Wang, Z. Xia, H.-D. Song, X. Feng, T. Wang, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Ballistic PbTe nanowire devices, Nano Letters 23, 11137 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    R. Li, W. Song, W. Miao, Z. Yu, Z. Wang, S. Yang, Y. Gao, Y. Wang, F. Chen, Z. Geng, L. Yang, J. Xu, X. Feng, T. Wang, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Selective-area-grown PbTe-Pb pla- nar Josephson junctions for quantum devices, Nano Let- ters 24, 4658 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Gupta, V

    M. Gupta, V. Khade, C. Riggert, L. Shani, G. Menning, P. J. H. Lueb, J. Jung, R. M´ elin, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and V. S. Pribiag, Evidence for π-shifted cooper quartets and few-mode transport in pbte nanowire three-terminal josephson junctions, Nano Letters 24, 13903 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    W. Song, Z. Yu, Y. Wang, Y. Gao, Z. Li, S. Yang, S. Zhang, Z. Geng, R. Li, Z. Wang, F. Chen, L. Yang, W. Miao, J. Xu, X. Feng, T. Wang, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Reducing dis- order in PbTe nanowires for Majorana research, Nano Letters 0, null (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Geng et al., Epitaxial Indium on PbTe nanowires for quantum devices, arXiv: 2402.04024 (2024)

    Z. Geng et al., Epitaxial Indium on PbTe nanowires for quantum devices, arXiv: 2402.04024 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Wang, W. Song, Z. Cao, Z. Yu, S. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Gao, R. Li, F. Chen, Z. Geng, L. Yang, J. Xu, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, X. Feng, T. Wang, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q.-K. Xue, D. E. Liu, K. He, and H. Zhang, Gate- tunable subband degeneracy in semiconductor nanowires, Proceedings ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Y. Gao, W. Song, Z. Yu, S. Yang, Y. Wang, R. Li, F. Chen, Z. Geng, L. Yang, J. Xu, Z. Wang, Z. Li, S. Zhang, X. Feng, T. Wang, Y. Zang, L. Li, R. Shang, Q.-K. Xue, K. He, and H. Zhang, Squid oscillations in pbte nanowire networks, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045405 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gao et al., Quanitized Andreev conductance in semi- conductor nanowires, arXiv: 2406.11211 (2024)

    Y. Gao et al., Quanitized Andreev conductance in semi- conductor nanowires, arXiv: 2406.11211 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mourik, K

    V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. Plissard, E. P. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Signatures of Majo- rana fermions in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowire devices, Science 336, 1003 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    M. Deng, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon, M. Lei- jnse, K. Flensberg, J. Nyg ˚ ard, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, Majorana bound state in a coupled quantum-dot hybrid-nanowire system, Science 354, 1557 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    H. J. Suominen, M. Kjaergaard, A. R. Hamilton, J. Sha- bani, C. J. Palmstrøm, C. M. Marcus, and F. Nichele, Zero-energy modes from coalescing Andreev states in a two-dimensional semiconductor-superconductor hybrid platform, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 176805 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    G¨ ul, H

    ¨O. G¨ ul, H. Zhang, J. D. Bommer, M. W. de Moor, D. Car, S. R. Plissard, E. P. Bakkers, A. Geresdi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Ballistic Majorana nanowire devices, 6 Nature Nanotechnology 13, 192 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    H. Song, Z. Zhang, D. Pan, D. Liu, Z. Wang, Z. Cao, L. Liu, L. Wen, D. Liao, R. Zhuo, et al., Large zero bias peaks and dips in a four-terminal thin InAs-Al nanowire device, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 033235 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Z. Wang, H. Song, D. Pan, Z. Zhang, W. Miao, R. Li, Z. Cao, G. Zhang, L. Liu, L. Wen, et al., Plateau regions for zero-bias peaks within 5% of the quantized conduc- tance value 2e2/h, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 167702 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. Driel, F. Zatelli, et al., Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots, Nature 614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Aghaee, A

    M. Aghaee, A. Akkala, Z. Alam, R. Ali, A. Al- caraz Ramirez, M. Andrzejczuk, A. E. Antipov, P. Aseev, M. Astafev, B. Bauer, et al.(Microsoft Quantum), InAs- Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245423 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. E. Liu, M. Wimmer, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Next steps of quantum transport in Majorana nanowire devices, Nature Communications 10, 5128 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nyg ˚ ard, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, From Andreev to Majorana bound states in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanowires, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 575 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Kouwenhoven, Perspective on majorana bound-states in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowires, Modern Physics Letters B 0, 2540002 (0)

    L. Kouwenhoven, Perspective on majorana bound-states in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowires, Modern Physics Letters B 0, 2540002 (0)

  23. [31]

    J. Liu, A. C. Potter, K. T. Law, and P. A. Lee, Zero-bias peaks in the tunneling conductance of spin-orbit-coupled superconducting wires with and without Majorana end- states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267002 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, and R. Aguado, Transport spectroscopy of NS nanowire junctions with Majorana fermions, Physical Review B 86, 180503 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Rainis, L

    D. Rainis, L. Trifunovic, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, To- wards a realistic transport modeling in a superconduct- ing nanowire with Majorana fermions, Physical Review B 87, 024515 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Pan and S

    H. Pan and S. Das Sarma, Physical mechanisms for zero- bias conductance peaks in Majorana nanowires, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013377 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    S. Ahn, H. Pan, B. Woods, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Das Sarma, Estimating disorder and its adverse ef- fects in semiconductor majorana nanowires, Phys. Rev. Materials 5, 124602 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Das Sarma and H

    S. Das Sarma and H. Pan, Disorder-induced zero-bias peaks in Majorana nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195158 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    C. Zeng, G. Sharma, S. Tewari, and T. Stanescu, Par- tially separated Majorana modes in a disordered medium, Phys. Rev. B 105, 205122 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    R. Hess, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Trivial andreev band mimicking topological bulk gap reopening in the nonlocal conductance of long rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 207001 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    the same also applies to x and −x, as well as y and −y

    There is an uncertainty on the orientation of z and −z, which cannot be determined from SEM and STEM. the same also applies to x and −x, as well as y and −y

  32. [40]

    We notice that the g-factor in Ref.[7] is miscalculated by a factor of 2

  33. [41]

    Anisotropy of PbTe nanowires with and without a superconductor

    J. D. Bommer, H. Zhang, ¨O. G¨ ul, B. Nijholt, M. Wim- mer, F. N. Rybakov, J. Garaud, D. Rodic, E. Babaev, M. Troyer, et al., Spin-orbit protection of induced su- perconductivity in Majorana nanowires, Physical Review Letters 122, 187702 (2019). Supplemental Material for “Anis...

    2019

  34. [42]

    VTG1 = -2.55 V, VTG2 = -2.55 V

    Zeeman splittings with g-factor anisotropy and anti-crossings of dot levels can be observed. VTG1 = -2.55 V, VTG2 = -2.55 V. (b) Rotations in the three planes with a fixed magnitude of |B| = 0.2 T. The left panel corresponds to the xz plane. The plane of the middle panel is de...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.