Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Electrostatic Control Enables Robust Helical Edge Channel Transport in III-V Quantum Spin Hall Insulators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electrostatic dual gating simultaneously suppresses parasitic bulk and edge conduction in InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells, stabilizing quantized helical edge transport across a wide voltage range.

desk verdict Robust quantized helical edge transport in dual-gated III-V trilayer wells is real and reproducible; the edge/bulk decomposition is thinner than it looks and needs error bars and model validation before the constant-resistivity plateau is settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19051 v1 pith:JPXOUODY submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.mes-hall

Manuel Meyer , Tobias Fähndrich , Sebastian Schmid , Justus Walter , Martin Kamp , Adriana Wolf , Sergey Krishtopenko , Guillaume Sigu
show 7 more authors
Jean-Baptiste Rodriguez Eric Tournie Gerald Bastard Frederic Teppe Fabian Hartmann Sven Höfling Benoit Jouault
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumspinHalleffecthelicaledgestatesInAs/GaSb/InAstrilayerwellsdualgatingelectrostaticcontrolparasiticconductionbulkinsulationIII-Vtopologicalinsulators
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 sets out to remove the two obstacles that have kept InAs-based quantum spin Hall devices from behaving like true topological insulators: residual conduction through the bulk and parasitic conduction along the sample edges. It argues that independent top and back gates on InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells grown on an insulating AlSb substrate suppress both at once. Multi-probe measurements on macroscopic bars show an insulating bulk and a constant edge resistivity over a wide gate-voltage range, while microscopic devices show the edge resistance quantized to h/2e² over a similar range. The authors conclude that helical edge channels are intrinsically resilient to electric-field perturbations and that dual gating is a reliable route to clean, tunable topological transport in III-V systems. If correct, this provides the kind of stable gate-defined operating window that topological electronics would need.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual-gated InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum well grown on an AlSb quasi-substrate, a material stack engineered to have an inverted band structure with a large topological gap (27 meV at zero field, up to about 33 meV under gating). The mechanism that carries the argument is electrostatic control: independent top and back gates set the perpendicular electric field and move the Fermi level into the gap without destroying the band inversion, and the insulating AlSb substrate allows back-gate swings of at least 20 V without leakage. To separate edge from bulk currents, the paper applies a finite-difference multi-probe model that fits all four-terminal resistances simul

What would settle it

Fabricate a ring-shaped device from the same trilayer with contacts only on the inner and outer radii, so no edge current path exists. In the gate window where the paper reports an insulating bulk, the ring should pass no current; any measurable conduction would mean the multi-probe fit has misattributed bulk current to the edges. Conversely, a local probe that interrupts the edge (for example, a narrow constriction or a gate-defined barrier) should destroy the h/2e² plateau, confirming that the quantized conduction really lives on the edges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a dual-gated trilayer quantum well can be electrostatically tuned so that the bulk is insulating and the only significant conduction is through helical edge channels, at a resistance that stays pinned at the quantized value over a wide voltage range. The evidence: macroscopic Hall bars show bulk resistivity in the MΩ range while edge resistivity stays near 9 kΩ/µm for back-gate voltages from -10 V to +2 V; microscopic bars show four-terminal resistance at h/2e² (and h/6e² in a nonlocal configuration) from -10 V to +7 V. When the resistance eventually drops above +7 V, the paper attributes the drop to the gradual population of trivial n-

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-parameter finite-difference fit uniquely separates edge and bulk currents; if that model mis-specifies the edge geometry or has degenerate solutions, the central finding of a constant edge resistivity and an insulating bulk could be an artifact rather than a property of the device.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dual-gated InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells become a reproducible platform for quantum spin Hall experiments, with a well-defined gate-voltage window in which transport is purely helical.
  • The constant edge resistivity of roughly 9 kΩ/µm in macroscopic bars corresponds to a backscattering length near 3 µm, setting a practical length scale for future device layouts.
  • Staying below the onset threshold (about +2 V to +7 V depending on device) keeps parasitic edge channels inactive, so the quantization is preserved while the Fermi level is tuned.
  • Because the edge resistance is insensitive to electric fields, the resilience of helical edge channels is not specific to this exact heterostructure but is likely a general property of quantum spin Hall systems.
  • The electrostatic optimization demonstrated here should be transferable to other gate stacks, potentially extending clean helical transport to higher temperatures or longer edge lengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension, not explored in the paper, is to vary the lateral surface treatment or etch depth: if the resistance drop above threshold is caused by Fermi-level pinning at InAs edges, the onset voltage should shift systematically with edge preparation.
  • The same dual-gating scheme could plausibly be applied to other inverted-band III-V heterostructures or to germanium-tin / HgTe-type wells; the paper only demonstrates the effect on this trilayer, so the broader generality is an inference.
  • The threshold behavior offers a quality metric: devices with later onsets have cleaner edges, so a screening loop based on this onset voltage could accelerate material development.
  • If helical edges are as field-robust as claimed, then electrostatically defined structures in this material—such as point contacts or interferometers—should preserve edge coherence at gate biases far from the neutrality point, enabling experiments that previously required fine-tuned HgTe devices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports transport measurements on dual-gated InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells grown on AlSb quasi-substrates. In macroscopic Hall bars, a multi-probe analysis is used to separate bulk and edge contributions, yielding an insulating bulk and a roughly constant edge resistivity over a wide back-gate range, with an onset of parasitic edge conduction at more positive V_BG. In microscopic Hall bars with edge lengths below the phase-coherence length, the local and nonlocal resistances remain quantized to h/2e^2 and h/6e^2, respectively, over V_BG = -10 V to +7 V, indicating robust helical edge transport; above +7 V the resistance decreases, which the authors attribute to the population of trivial n-type edge channels rather than bulk conduction or gap collapse. The paper claims dual gating simultaneously suppresses parasitic bulk and edge conduction and stabilizes helical edge transport.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant: it demonstrates a practical electrostatic strategy for achieving robust and quantized helical edge transport in a III-V quantum spin Hall platform over a wide electric-field range, addressing two long-standing obstacles (parasitic bulk and trivial edge conduction). The manuscript has notable strengths: the SM provides an overdetermined 45-trace simultaneous fit on an additional macroscopic device (SM Fig. S5), a second microscopic device shows qualitatively the same trend (SM Fig. S8), and the structural characterization (STEM, AFM) supports high material quality. The quantization comparison is not circular; the measured resistances are compared with theoretical values rather than used to set constants. However, the main-text decomposition into edge and bulk resistivities is underdetermined, and the analysis relies on a cited model whose uniqueness and sensitivity are not demonstrated in this paper. These issues affect the robustness of the central quantitative claim, though they are addressable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3(b) and multi-probe analysis (main text)] The main-text extraction of ρ_bulk and ρ_edge uses only two resistance traces (R03,12 and R15,24) with two free parameters (uniform edge conductivity and bulk conductivity). With two data points and two unknowns, the fit is exactly determined and cannot by itself establish the claimed constant-ρ_edge plateau or the MΩ bulk bound. The SM's 45-trace simultaneous fit on a second device provides overdetermination, but this is not stated in the main text. To support the central quantitative claim, the authors should present the overdetermined fit in the main text or provide a clear statement and error analysis showing that the two-trace fit is consistent with the 45-trace result. At minimum, error bars or goodness-of-fit measures are needed for Fig. 3(b).
  2. [Multi-probe model validation (Ref. [50], SM Figs. S5–S7)] The finite-difference model of Ref. [50] is cited but not derived, validated, or tested for this specific device geometry. The assumption of a single uniform edge conductivity and a single bulk conductivity, with no contact resistance or edge inhomogeneity, may be degenerate: a localized high-conductivity edge segment or a finite contact resistance could potentially mimic a uniform edge plus an insulating bulk. This is load-bearing because the attribution of the high-V_BG resistance drop to parasitic edge channels (rather than bulk conduction or geometry effects) rests on the extracted ρ_bulk and ρ_edge. Please add a sensitivity analysis, a uniqueness test, or a comparison with an alternative model, and consider making the fit code or raw resistance traces available so the decomposition can be independently verified.
  3. [Figs. 2(c) and 3(b): error bars] The extracted gaps E_gap(V_BG), the bulk resistivity, and the edge resistivity are plotted without error bars or statistical uncertainties. The claims that E_gap reaches a maximum at V_BG=+6 V, that ρ_edge is 'constant' from -10 V to +2 V, and that ρ_bulk remains in the MΩ regime cannot be quantitatively assessed without uncertainties. At least the fit uncertainties from the multi-probe analysis (which the SM mentions in the context of ρ_bulk^min) should be propagated and displayed. This is a presentation issue but directly affects the strength of the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'accross' should be 'across'.
  2. [SM Fig. S3 caption and text] The caption for Fig. S3 appears to be mislabeled: the text refers to panels (c) and (d) at V_BG=+6 V, but the caption says 'for VBG = -10 V' for both (a) and (c). Also, the text refers to 'Fig. RS3' instead of 'Fig. S3' in several places. Please correct these inconsistencies.
  3. [Fig. 3(a)] Please define what 'maximum resistance' means: presumably the maximum over V_TG at each fixed V_BG, but this should be stated explicitly. Also indicate whether the local and nonlocal maxima are taken at the same V_TG for each V_BG.
  4. [SM Fig. S6 and main-text Fig. 3(b)] The SM reports edge conductivities around 200–300 µS·µm for the additional device, while the main-text Fig. 3(b) implies ρ_edge ≈ 9 kΩ/µm, i.e. σ_edge ≈ 111 µS·µm. This device-to-device difference should be acknowledged in the main text so the reader does not infer an inconsistency between the two data sets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; bulk/edge decomposition is an explicit fit and quantized-edge claim is directly measured.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental transport study, not a derivation chain. The key extracted quantities (ρbulk and ρedge) are explicitly obtained by fitting the finite-difference multi-probe model cited as Ref. [50]; the paper says 'By fitting both configurations simultaneously ... we extract the bulk and edge resistivities' and 'The edge and bulk conductivities are then estimated by the best fit of the experimental resistances for each gate voltage.' Reporting best-fit parameters is data analysis, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The 'insulating bulk / constant edge resistance' conclusion is therefore model-dependent, but the model is a published external method with stated assumptions (uniform edge and bulk conductivities) and does not encode the target result; possible degeneracy or insufficient overdetermination in the two-trace main-text fit is an identifiability/validation issue, not circularity. The microscopic quantization claim is a direct comparison of measured Rmax to the theoretical values h/2e2 and h/6e2, with no fitted constants entering that test. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [50] for the analysis model, Refs. [11,20] for band-structure and prior transport context) are used as tools or context, not as an authority that forces the conclusion. The SM's admission that ρbulk 'could not be determined precisely by the model' and that only a minimal value is reported is a limitation on the strength of the insulating-bulk claim, but it does not make the argument circular. Overall, no step reduces to its own inputs by construction; a low score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central experimental claims rest on a small set of modeling assumptions: the two-parameter multi-probe decomposition, the Arrhenius gap extraction, and a cross-device bulk-insulating inference. Several reported quantities (capacitances, edge/bulk resistivities, Egap, onset threshold) are fit outputs rather than direct measurements, but no ad hoc physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Back-gate capacitances C1,BG, C2,BG, C3,BG = ≈15 nF/cm², ≈6 nF/cm², ≈22 nF/cm²
    Fitted from slopes of resistance-peak shifts using the capacitor model (SM Eq. 1). Used to demonstrate electrostatic control and interpret effective back-gate distance; not central to the quantized-edge claim.
  • Edge and bulk conductivities from multi-probe fits = ρ_edge ≈ 9 kΩ/µm (macroscopic device), ρ_bulk > MΩ range
    Two-parameter finite-difference fit to 45 four-probe resistances (Fig. 3, SM Figs. S5–S7). These fit outputs are the central evidence for insulating bulk and constant edge resistance.
  • Topological gap energy Egap(VBG) = ≈28.5–33.1 meV across VBG
    Extracted from Arrhenius activation fits Rmax ∝ exp(Egap/2kBT) at each back-gate voltage (Fig. 2b,c). Used to argue the topological phase persists across the gate range.
  • Threshold back-gate voltage for parasitic edge onset = +7 V (main microscopic device), +6 V (supplement device)
    Identified by eye from the onset of the resistance decrease (Fig. 4, SM Fig. S8). Central to the interpretation that the decrease is caused by parasitic edge channels.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The multi-probe finite-difference model with uniform edge and bulk conductivities uniquely separates edge and bulk currents.
    Used throughout Fig. 3 and SM Figs. S5–S7; the paper cites Ref. [50] but does not derive or validate the uniqueness of the decomposition.
  • domain assumption Local and nonlocal four-terminal resistances quantized to h/2e² and h/6e² identify helical edge transport.
    Used to normalize Fig. 4; this is standard quantum spin Hall theory.
  • domain assumption Rmax ∝ exp(Egap/2kBT) governs the high-temperature transport used for gap extraction.
    Used in Fig. 2b,c to extract Egap; the authors restrict fits to the high-temperature activated regime, but no fit uncertainties or residuals are shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulk remains insulating in the microscopic device above VBG ≈ +7 V because it is insulating in a macroscopic device (Fig. 3b).
    Cross-device extrapolation made in the main text after Fig. 4; the microscopic device's bulk is not directly measured in this regime.
  • domain assumption Trivial n-type edge states from Fermi-level pinning at InAs surfaces explain the high-VBG conductance increase.
    Borrowed from Refs. [25–28,32–36]; used to interpret the resistivity drop rather than being directly detected in this experiment.
  • domain assumption The 8-band k·p Hamiltonian with parameters from Refs. [11,44] correctly describes the TQW band structure and gap.
    Used for band-structure insets, van Hove singularity assignment, and claims that the inverted phase persists over the gate range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrostatic Control Enables Robust Helical Edge Channel Transport in III-V Quantum Spin Hall Insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPXOUODY

@misc{pith2026260719051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrostatic Control Enables Robust Helical Edge Channel Transport in III-V Quantum Spin Hall Insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPXOUODY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19051}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum spin Hall transport in InAs/GaInSb-based two-dimensional topological insulators can be limited by parasitic bulk and edge contributions. We demonstrate that these limitations are effectively mitigated through electrostatic control in dual-gated InAs/GaInSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells grown on AlSb quasi-substrates. In macroscopic Hall bars exceeding the phase coherence length, a multi-probe analysis reveals an insulating bulk and a constant edge resistance over a wide electric-field range. In microscopic devices with edge lengths below the phase coherence lengths, the edge resistance remains robust and quantized accross a broad field range, revealing the intrinsic resilience of helical edge channels to electric-field perturbations. Only beyond a threshold value, parasitic edge contributions emerge. These results establish dual gating as a reliable strategy to suppress parasitic conduction while stabilizing helical edge transport, providing a versatile and reproducible platform for tunable topological transport in III-V quantum spin Hall systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. STEM image of the investigated InAs/GaInSb/InAs TQW. The AlSb barriers and TQW layers are depicted and color-coded to match the layer schematic shown in the bottom right inset. The image reveals sharp interfaces and high structural uniformity. The top right inset displays the calculated topological band structure of the TQW, showing an inverted energy gap of Egap = 27 meV. The dual gating of InAs/(Ga,In)Sb BQWs and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Four terminal longitudinal resistance R03,12 as a function of VBG = +10 to -10 V and VTG = +2 to -6 V at T = 4.2 K (inset: optical image of the Hall bar). A diagonal line of maximum resistance indicates the charge neutrality condition, along which the Fermi level is positioned within the topological gap. Three regions with distinct effective back-gate capacitances are identified from the slope of the resistance … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Maximum resistance Rmax as a function of VBG = +10 V to -10 V for R03,12 (local configuration, black) and R15,24 (non-local configuration, blue). (b) Extracted bulk resistivity ρbulk and edge resistivity ρedge,. ρbulk is altered MΩ-regime, evidencing an insulating bulk over the full range. Between VBG = -10 to +2 V, ρedge is mostly constant at 9 kΩ/µm and decreases for VBG > +2 V, signaling the onset of parasiti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An exemplary scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the device is provided in the inset. The length between the inner and outer contacts is 3 µm and 3.5 µm. Therefore, the edge lengths are below or close to the phase coherence length [20,50]. By sweeping VTG throu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [50]

    Benlenqwanssa et al., Multi-probe analysis to separate edge currents from bulk currents in quantum spin Hall insulators and to analyze their temperature dependence, Phys

    S. Benlenqwanssa et al., Multi-probe analysis to separate edge currents from bulk currents in quantum spin Hall insulators and to analyze their temperature dependence, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064059 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Quantum Spin hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005)

    2005

  3. [2]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S. C. Zhang, Quantum spin hall effect and topological phase transition in HgTe quantum wells, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

    2006

  4. [3]

    König, S

    M. König, S. Wiedmann, C. Brüne, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X. Qi, and S. Zhang, Quantum Spin Hall Insulator State in HgTe Quantum Wells, Science 318, 766 (2007)

    2007

  5. [4]

    F. Reis, G. Li, L. Dudy, M. Bauernfeind, S. Glass, W. Hanke, R. Thomale, J. Schäfer, and R. Claessen, Bismuthene on a SiC substrate: A candidate for a high-temperature quantum spin Hall material, Science 357, 287 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    S. Wu, V. Fatemi, Q. D. Gibson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Observation of the quantum spin Hall effect up to 100 kelvin in a monolayer crystal, Science 359, 76 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    Hatsuda, H

    K. Hatsuda, H. Mine, T. Nakamura, J. Li, R. Wu, S. Katsumoto, and J. Haruyama, Evidence for a quantum spin hall phase in graphene decorated with Bi2Te3 nanoparticles, Sci. Adv. 4, eaau6915 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    M. G. Vergniory, L. Elcoro, C. Felser, N. Regnault, B. A. Bernevig, and Z. Wang, A complete catalogue of high-quality topological materials, Nature 566, 480 (2019)

    2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    C. Liu, T. L. Hughes, X. L. Qi, K. Wang, and S. C. Zhang, Quantum spin hall effect in inverted type- II semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 236601 (2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    Riney et al., Interface Dependent Coexistence of Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Gases in Mn-doped InAs/GaSb, Adv

    L. Riney et al., Interface Dependent Coexistence of Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Gases in Mn-doped InAs/GaSb, Adv. Mater. Interfaces 12, 2400630 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Riney et al., Fermi level tuning and band alignment in Mn-doped InAs/GaSb, Phys

    L. Riney et al., Fermi level tuning and band alignment in Mn-doped InAs/GaSb, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125301 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    S. S. Krishtopenko and F. Teppe, Quantum spin Hall insulator with a large bandgap, Dirac fermions, and bilayer graphene analog, Sci. Adv. 4, eaap7529 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Schmid, M

    S. Schmid, M. Meyer, F. Jabeen, G. Bastard, F. Hartmann, and S. Höfling, Exploring the phase diagram of InAs / GaSb / InAs trilayer quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 105, 155304 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Qu et al., Electric and Magnetic Tuning between the Trivial and Topological Phases in InAs/GaSb Double Quantum Wells, Phys

    F. Qu et al., Electric and Magnetic Tuning between the Trivial and Topological Phases in InAs/GaSb Double Quantum Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036803 (2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    H. Irie, T. Akiho, F. Couëdo, K. Suzuki, K. Onomitsu, and K. Muraki, Energy gap tuning and gate- controlled topological phase transition in InAs/InxGa1-xSb composite quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 104201 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    B. Tong, Z. Han, T. Li, C. Zhang, G. Sullivan, and R. Du Rui, Tuning the charge states in InAs/GaSb or InAs/GaInSb composite quantum wells by persistent photoconductivity, AIP Adv. 7, 75211 (2017). 27

    2017

  9. [16]

    Knebl, P

    G. Knebl, P. Pfeffer, S. Schmid, M. Kamp, G. Bastard, E. Batke, L. Worschech, F. Hartmann, and S. Höfling, Optical tuning of the charge carrier type in the topological regime of InAs/GaSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 98, 041301(R) (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Meyer, T

    M. Meyer, T. Fähndrich, S. Schmid, A. Wolf, S. S. Krishtopenko, B. Jouault, G. Bastard, F. Teppe, F. Hartmann, and S. Höfling, Coexistence of topological and normal insulating phases in electro- optically tuned InAs / GaSb bilayer quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 109, L121303 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    S. S. Krishtopenko et al., Temperature-dependent terahertz spectroscopy of inverted-band three- layer InAs/GaSb/InAs quantum well, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245419 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Meyer, S

    M. Meyer, S. Schmid, F. Jabeen, G. Bastard, F. Hartmann, and S. Höfling, Topological band structure in InAs / GaSb / InAs triple quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085301 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Meyer et al., Quantum spin Hall effect in III-V semiconductors at elevated temperatures: Advancing topological electronics, Sci

    M. Meyer et al., Quantum spin Hall effect in III-V semiconductors at elevated temperatures: Advancing topological electronics, Sci. Adv. 11, eadz2408 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    R. Weih, M. Kamp, and S. Höfling, Interband cascade lasers with room temperature threshold current densities below 100 A/cm2, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Schäfer, J

    N. Schäfer, J. Scheuermann, R. Weih, J. Koeth, and S. Höfling, High efficiency mid-infrared interband cascade LEDs grown on low absorbing substrates emitting >5 mW of output power, Opt. Eng. 58, 117106 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Bader, F

    A. Bader, F. Rothmayr, N. Khan, F. Jabeen, J. Koeth, S. Höfling, and F. Hartmann, Interband cascade infrared photodetectors based on Ga-free InAs/InAsSb superlattice absorbers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 041104 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Tournié, L

    E. Tournié, L. M. Bartolome, M. R. Calvo, Z. Loghmari, D. A. Díaz-Thomas, R. Teissier, A. N. Baranov, L. Cerutti, and J. B. Rodriguez, Mid-infrared III–V semiconductor lasers epitaxially grown on Si substrates, Light Sci. Appl. 11, 165 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Mueller, A

    S. Mueller, A. N. Pal, M. Karalic, T. Tschirky, C. Charpentier, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Nonlocal transport via edge states in InAs/GaSb coupled quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 92, 081303(R) (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    B. M. Nguyen et al., Decoupling Edge Versus Bulk Conductance in the Trivial Regime of an InAs/GaSb Double Quantum Well Using Corbino Ring Geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 077701 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Nichele et al., Edge transport in the trivial phase of InAs/GaSb, New J

    F. Nichele et al., Edge transport in the trivial phase of InAs/GaSb, New J. Phys. 18, 083005 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Mueller, C

    S. Mueller, C. Mittag, T. Tschirky, C. Charpentier, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Edge transport in InAs and InAs/GaSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075406 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Chandola, R

    A. Chandola, R. Pino, and P. S. Dutta, Below bandgap optical absorption in tellurium-doped GaSb, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 20, 886 (2005)

    2005

  23. [30]

    Segercrantz, J

    N. Segercrantz, J. Slotte, I. Makkonen, J. Kujala, F. Tuomisto, Y. Song, and S. Wang, Point defect balance in epitaxial GaSb, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 082113 (2014). 28

    2014

  24. [31]

    Buckeridge, T

    J. Buckeridge, T. D. Veal, C. R. A. Catlow, and D. O. Scanlon, Intrinsic point defects and the n - And p -type dopability of the narrow gap semiconductors GaSb and InSb, Phys. Rev. B 100, 035207 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    C. A. Mead and W. G. Spitzer, Fermi level position at semiconductor surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 471 (1963)

    1963

  26. [33]

    D. C. Tsui, Observation of surface bound state and two-dimensional energy band by electron tunneling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 303-306 (1970)

    1970

  27. [34]

    Noguchi, K

    M. Noguchi, K. Hirakawa, and T. Ikoma, Intrinsic electron accumulation layers on reconstructed clean InAs(100) surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2243-2246 (1991)

    1991

  28. [35]

    Olsson, C

    L. Olsson, C. B. M. Andersson, M. C. Håkansson, J. Kanski, L. Ilver, and U. O. Karlsson, Charge Accumulation at InAs Surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3626 (1996)

    1996

  29. [36]

    Bhargava, H

    S. Bhargava, H. R. Blank, V. Narayanamurti, and H. Kroemer, Fermi-level pinning position at the Au-InAs interface determined using ballistic electron emission microscopy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 759 (1997)

    1997

  30. [37]

    L. Du, I. Knez, G. Sullivan, and R.-R. Du, Robust Helical Edge Transport in Gated InAs/GaSb Bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 096802 (2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    H. Irie, T. Akiho, F. Couëdo, R. Ohana, K. Suzuki, K. Onomitsu, and K. Muraki, Impact of epitaxial strain on the topological-nontopological phase diagram and semimetallic behavior of InAs/GaSb composite quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 101, 075433 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Avogadri et al., Large inverted band-gap in strained three-layer InAs/GaInSb quantum wells, Phys

    C. Avogadri et al., Large inverted band-gap in strained three-layer InAs/GaInSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042042 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    Du et al., Tuning Edge States in Strained-Layer InAs/GaInSb Quantum Spin Hall Insulators, Phys

    L. Du et al., Tuning Edge States in Strained-Layer InAs/GaInSb Quantum Spin Hall Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 056803 (2017)

    2017

  34. [41]

    Charpentier, S

    C. Charpentier, S. Fält, C. Reichl, F. Nichele, A. N. Pal, P. Pietsch, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and W. Wegscheider, Suppression of bulk conductivity in InAs/GaSb broken gap composite quantum wells, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 28 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    E. M. Spanton, K. C. Nowack, Du Lingjie, G. Sullivan, R. Du Rui, and K. A. Moler, Images of edge current in InAs/GaSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 026804 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    See Supplemental Material

  37. [44]

    Vurgaftman, J

    I. Vurgaftman, J. R. Meyer, and L. R. Ram-Mohan, Band parameters for III-V compound semiconductors and their alloys, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 5815 (2001)

    2001

  38. [45]

    C. R. Müller, L. Worschech, and A. Forchel, Inversion of hysteresis in quantum dot controlled quantum-wire transistor, Phys. Rev. B 79, 205307 (2009)

    2009

  39. [46]

    Nichele, A

    F. Nichele, A. N. Pal, K. Ensslin, T. Ihn, W. Wegscheider, C. Charpentier, and P. Pietsch, Insulating State and Giant Nonlocal Response in an InAs/GaSb Quantum Well in the Quantum Hall Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 036802 (2014). 29

    2014

  40. [47]

    Meyer, S

    M. Meyer, S. Schmid, F. Jabeen, G. Bastard, F. Hartmann, and S. Höfling, Voltage control of the quantum scattering time in InAs/GaSb/InAs trilayer quantum wells, New J. Phys. 25, 023035 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Naveh and B

    Y. Naveh and B. Laikhtman, Magnetotransport of coupled electron-holes, Europhys. Lett. 55, 545 (2001)

    2001

  42. [49]

    Knez, Du Rui-Rui, and G

    I. Knez, Du Rui-Rui, and G. Sullivan, Evidence for Helical Edge Modes in Inverted InAs/GaSb Quantum Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 136603 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Lunczer, P

    L. Lunczer, P. Leubner, M. Endres, V. L. Müller, C. Brüne, H. Buhmann, and L. W. Molenkamp, Approaching Quantization in Macroscopic Quantum Spin Hall Devices through Gate Training, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 047701 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Chatterjee, S

    B. Chatterjee, S. A. Ringel, R. Sieg, R. Hoffman, and I. Weinberg, Hydrogen passivation of dislocations in InP on GaAs heterostructures, Appl. Phys. Lett. 65, 58 (1994)

    1994

  45. [53]

    K. C. Wong, M. Krishnamurthy, B. Brar, J. C. Yi, H. Kroemer, and J. H. English, Growth and characterization of serpentine superlattices in the GaSb-AlSb system, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 1211 (1993)

    1993

  46. [54]

    J. S. Liu, M. B. Clavel, R. Pandey, S. Datta, M. Meeker, G. A. Khodaparast, and M. K. Hudait, Growth and characterization of metamorphic InAs/GaSb tunnel heterojunction on GaAs by molecular beam epitaxy, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 244308 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.