Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Andreev spin qubits based on the helical edge states of magnetically doped two-dimensional topological insulators

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic doping turns on microwave control of Andreev spin qubits

desk verdict Magnetic doping is a workable idea for Andreev spin qubits, but the paper's central claim rests on an unproven static-impurity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.22226 v2 pith:PTMXDVEC submitted 2026-01-29 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Edoardo Latini , Fausto Rossi , Fabrizio Dolcini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp
keywords AndreevspinqubitquantumHallinsulatorhelicaledgestatesJosephsonjunctionmagneticdopingelectricdipoletransitionsNOTgateHadamard
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 new platform for Andreev spin qubits: a Josephson junction built from the helical edge states of a two-dimensional topological insulator, with two superconducting banks and a magnetic impurity inside the weak link. It claims that the magnetic doping tilts the spin texture of the Andreev bound states enough to make electric-dipole transitions between the two spin-split levels allowed, something the helical selection rules otherwise forbid. On that basis the authors simulate microwave-pulse control of the qubit and show that NOT and Hadamard gates run with high fidelity, without an external Zeeman field or ancillary states. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a route to spin-based superconducting qubits in a material system where hyperfine and phonon decoherence are expected to be much weaker than in the current nanowire implementations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the off-diagonal electric-dipole matrix element g12 = ∫ dx Φ₁†(x)(τ₀ ⊗ σ_z)Φ₂(x) between the two Andreev bound-state wavefunctions. In a clean helix the two ABSs are eigenstates of σ_z, so g12 = 0 and optical control is forbidden; the magnetic doping (specifically the in-plane component m⊥σ_x) rotates the spin texture, producing a finite g12. Combined with the analytically fixed pulse-amplitude relation E₀ = (E₂ − E₁)θ / (√(8π) e v_F |g12| τ), this single number determines the Rabi-like rotation angle for the qubit and hence the gate operation. The paper shows g12 is largely independent of whether the disorder is an extended barrier or a δ-impurity as long as the a

What would settle it

Spectroscopy on a HgTe/CdTe junction with dilute Mn doping: measure the Rabi frequency of the Andreev transition as a function of impurity transmission; zero or strongly suppressed Rabi flopping at Tδ ≈ 0.8 would contradict the predicted g12 ≈ 0.43.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the Bogoliubov–de Gennes description of a short-to-intermediate helical Josephson junction (weak-link length L ≈ 2ξ_S), the paper demonstrates that a static magnetic barrier — in particular a single δ-like impurity with transmission Tδ ≈ 0.8 — imprints an in-plane spin component on the Andreev bound states. The off-diagonal current-matrix element g12 between the two ABS levels, which controls the electric-dipole coupling to microwave radiation, rises to about 0.43 at phase bias φ = π/2, exactly where the level splitting is substantial. Solving the Liouville–von Neumann equation for the Nambu single-particle density matrix, the authors find that a resonant Gaussian pulse applies a cont

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a magnetic impurity inside the weak link behaves as a fixed, non-dephasing scatterer; if the impurity fluctuates or acts as a Kondo center instead, the predicted transitions would be washed out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NOT and Hadamard gates on the helical-edge ASQ can be implemented with a single resonant Gaussian microwave pulse; the simulated evolution is unitary and reaches the correct output states.
  • The gate quality is largely insensitive to the superconducting phase bias: at φ = 0, π/2 the operation works despite very different level splittings (0.25 vs 0.52 meV) and transition amplitudes (0.94 vs 0.43), with only small 2ω off-resonant wiggles.
  • The same electric-dipole mechanism, without any Zeeman field, provides an initial-state preparation protocol using a third ABS as an auxiliary: a pulse at frequency (E₁+E₃)/ħ promotes a Cooper pair into levels 1 and 3, leaving the qubit in |0>.
  • Even in a worst-case decoherence scenario equal to present nanowire ASQs (T1 = 100 ns, T2 = 50 ns), a sequence of 20 NOT gates (10 ns) loses only ~10% of the polarization, implying tens of operations fit within the decoherence time.
  • Magnetic doping is essential: as transmission Tδ → 1 (no doping), g12 → 0, so the entire qubit-control mechanism disappears.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the scheme might be testable at lower cost in existing HgTe/Nb devices where Mn doping has already been demonstrated; a first experiment could look for the predicted microwave absorption peak between the two ABSs at zero external field, rather than for full gate operation.
  • Inference: the same spin-texture-tilting mechanism should, for a magnetic impurity with in-plane component, also modify the Josephson current-phase relation and the 4π-periodic part; measuring a doping-induced change in the critical current could serve as a complementary marker of the g12 physics.
  • Inference: the paper's claim that g12 depends only on the impurity area α, not on the spatial profile, suggests the mechanism is robust to the unavoidable spatial spread of real dopants; an extension beyond static impurities (Kondo-like dynamics) would be the natural next test, since the model assumes the impurity is frozen.
  • Inference: because the qubit is encoded in the two spin-split ABSs of a topological junction, a natural extension is to ask whether the same microwave control can read out fermion parity, which would link the scheme to topological-parity-based qubits.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an Andreev spin qubit realized in a Josephson junction formed by the helical edge of a two-dimensional topological insulator proximitized by s-wave superconductors. Magnetic doping inside the weak link is modeled as a static scattering barrier that tilts the spin texture of the Andreev bound states, producing a nonzero electric-dipole matrix element g12 between the two subgap states. The authors solve the BdG problem for intermediate-length junctions, compute g12 as a function of barrier parameters, and simulate the Liouville-von Neumann dynamics under Gaussian microwave pulses. They report NOT and Hadamard operations at a superconducting phase difference phi=pi/2, propose a three-ABS state preparation protocol, and add a worst-case T1-T2 decoherence analysis. The central claim is that the Andreev spin qubit can be manipulated by microwave radiation without an external Zeeman field or ancillary states.

Significance. If the static classical-impurity model is accepted, the paper is a credible and useful proposal. The Appendix A scattering-matrix derivation is consistent and reduces to the known ABS equation, Eq. (12), in the clean limit. The transition amplitude g12 is computed from BdG eigenfunctions rather than tuned to force the gate outcomes, and the simulations show the expected Rabi dynamics with proper pi and pi/2 rotations. The proposal is novel relative to nanowire-based Andreev spin qubits and builds on established HgTe/Nb and Mn-doping technology. The main weakness is the incomplete justification of treating the Mn local moments as static c-number scatterers; this assumption is load-bearing for the gate simulations and for the decoherence analysis. The manuscript also contains an unsupported assertion about K<1/4 in Sec. V.C.1. These issues are fixable but require substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A; Sec. IV, Eqs. (4), (10), (15), Figs. 6-7] The central mechanism is the static magnetization profile m(x) in Eq. (4), whose delta-impurity limit is used with fixed transmission T_delta=0.8 in the gate simulations of Figs. 6-7 and in Eq. (10). This treats the Mn moment as a classical c-number scatterer. For the spin-5/2 Mn dopants discussed in Sec. V.A, this is valid only in a classical-spin limit with frozen orientation or in the deep Kondo-screened regime; neither is derived for the HgTe/CdTe parameters quoted. A dynamical impurity can exchange spin with the edge, causing inelastic spin-flip scattering and microwave-induced impurity transitions near the ABS resonance, none of which is contained in the BdG Hamiltonian (5) or in the phenomenological T1-T2 term (42). Please provide microscopic estimates (exchange coupling, magnetic anisotropy, Kondo temperature) that establish a valid parameter window, or explicitly restrict the cl
  2. [Sec. V.C.1] The statement that below the Kondo temperature two-particle backscattering causing spin decoherence is relevant only for very strong interaction (K<1/4) is asserted without derivation. It is used to argue that dynamical impurity effects can be neglected for HgTe, where K is close to 1, and is therefore load-bearing for the static-barrier picture. The cited literature on Kondo impurities in helical liquids contains nontrivial renormalization effects even at moderate K; please provide a derivation or a precise statement of the model and parameter regime for which this claim holds. As written, the decoherence analysis does not exclude a Kondo-induced dephasing channel that would affect the validity of Eq. (10) in Sec. IV.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.C.2, Eq. (43)] The statement that T1 >= 2T2 is necessary for positivity appears inverted. For a standard qubit with population relaxation T1 and total coherence time T2, complete positivity requires T2 <= 2T1, not T1 >= 2T2. The chosen values T1=100 ns and T2=50 ns satisfy the correct condition, so Fig. 9 is unaffected, but the statement should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (22) and text] There is an index typo in the double sum: the term gamma_i^dagger gamma_n should presumably be gamma_i^dagger gamma_j. Please check all indices.
  3. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'Bololubov' in Sec. II.B; 'depictes' in the caption of Fig. 2; 'electrical dipole' in the abstract. The range of the Luttinger parameter should be written 0<K<=1.
  4. [Sec. IV, Figs. 6-7] The paper claims realization of NOT and Hadamard gates but reports only population and polarization traces. A quantitative gate fidelity, including leakage outside the two-ABS subspace and the effect of counter-rotating terms, would make the central claim more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the ABS spectrum is re-derived in the appendix, and the gate-relevant transition amplitude is computed from wavefunctions rather than fitted.

full rationale

The central derivation of the paper is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The model is defined through the explicit BdG Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(7), with the magnetic-doping profile m(x) as an input. The ABS energy equation (12) is attributed to Ref. [54], which includes an overlapping author, but the paper does not merely import it: Appendix A derives Eq. (12) from the scattering-matrix construction, and explicitly states that the level equation 'reduces to Eq. (12) given in the Main Text, recovering the result of Ref[54].' Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The central nontrivial quantity, the optical transition amplitude g12, is computed as an overlap integral of the BdG eigenfunctions in Eq. (23), not tuned to reproduce any target gate fidelity or external datum. The NOT and Hadamard simulations solve the Liouville-von Neumann equation (28) with the Gaussian pulse (36); the pulse-area formula (39) is a standard Rabi condition from a textbook, and the only input needed is the computed g12. The numerical parameters (Tδ=0.8, λ=2, ϕ=π/2, etc.) are realistic model choices rather than fit parameters, and the paper explicitly checks robustness to ϕ and to the impurity shape. The static-impurity approximation is a modeling assumption whose limitations are acknowledged in Sec. V.C.1, making it a correctness or validity concern rather than a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely relabeled.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposal's quantitative content rests on a few well-motivated but untested modeling choices: a step-like proximity gap, a static magnetic barrier parameterized by its area α, and a truncation to the lowest Andreev levels. The decoherence estimates are explicitly presented as a worst-case benchmark rather than as microscopic predictions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • α (magnetic barrier area) = 1.0 (Fig. 2), 0.5 (Fig. 4), corresponding to Tδ=0.8 (Figs. 6-9)
    Controls the spin-flip transmission through the δ-like impurity and hence the transition amplitude g12. Chosen to illustrate the mechanism, not fitted to data.
  • x0 (impurity position) = L/4 or 0 (center)
    Affects the magnitude of g12 but not its qualitative behavior. Set to convenient values.
  • λ = L/ξS = 2 (two ABSs); 3 (three ABSs for state preparation)
    Determines the number of Andreev levels. The intermediate-length regime is chosen to obtain a usable two-level subspace.
  • µ (chemical potential) = Δ0/2 (Fig. 2) or 0 (Fig. 4)
    Representative values; the paper notes g12 is largely insensitive to µ except for extended barriers.
  • T1, T2 (phenomenological decoherence times) = T1=100 ns, T2=50 ns
    Assumed 'worst case' values comparable to nanowire ASQs, used to benchmark gate robustness. Not derived from a microscopic model.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Helical edge states are described by massless Dirac fermions with linear dispersion (Eq. 1).
    Standard effective model for quantum spin Hall edges within the bulk gap.
  • domain assumption Proximity-induced superconducting pairing has a step-like spatial profile with constant magnitude Δ0 (Eq. 2-3).
    Conventional simplification for superconductor-normal-superconductor junctions; neglects proximity decay and self-consistency.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic disorder is modeled as a static scattering barrier with the explicit form of Eq. (15).
    The paper assumes a specific rectangular barrier and considers the δ-impurity and extended-barrier limits. This is a modeling choice for the magnetic doping, not an independently established description.
  • standard math The ABS spectrum is obtained from the scattering-matrix determinant condition (Eq. 12), following the approach of Ref. [54].
    Rely on a published derivation of ABS energies in helical junctions; used as a tool.
  • domain assumption Electromagnetic coupling is via minimal coupling with current operator J(x)=ev_F σ_z (Eq. 19).
    Standard current operator for a 1D Dirac fermion; assumes no additional orbital coupling.
  • domain assumption The BdG field expansion is truncated to the N discrete ABS states, neglecting continuum states (Eq. 21).
    Justified by the subgap energy range of interest, but no quantitative error bound is given; the approximation is standard in ASQ theory.
  • domain assumption Gaussian pulses are used in the adiabatic regime ωτ≫1 (Eq. 36-38).
    Common choice for microwave control; the adiabatic envelope justifies the rotating-wave-type treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper Decoherence is modeled by a phenomenological T1-T2 Lindblad-type term (Eq. 42).
    The paper explicitly labels these as a 'worst case scenario' and does not derive them from microscopic mechanisms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Andreev spin qubits based on the helical edge states of magnetically doped two-dimensional topological insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTMXDVEC

@misc{pith2026260122226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Andreev spin qubits based on the helical edge states of magnetically doped two-dimensional topological insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTMXDVEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22226}
}
read the original abstract

We show that Andreev spin qubits can be realized in a Josephson junction based on the helical edge states of a two-dimensional topological insulator (quantum spin Hall system) proximized by superconducting films, in the presence of magnetic doping. We demonstrate that the electric dipole transitions between the Andreev spin states induced by the magnetic doping can be harnessed to manipulate the Andreev spin qubit by microwave radiation pulses, without applying an external Zeeman field or invoking ancillary states. We numerically simulate the realization of NOT and Hadamard quantum logic gates, and discuss implementations in realistic setups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme of realization of an ASQ based on a two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The ABS energy levels as a function of the super [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spatial profile of the three spin density components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Simulation of the implementation of a NOT gate in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Simulation of the Hadamard gate. The parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Simulation of the initial state preparation (negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulation of a sequence of operations (20 NOT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Scheme of the JJ: Andreev scattering occurs at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In QSHI realized with InAs/GaSb bilayers, the hyperfine constant is of the same order of magnitude[47, 73]

    Inelastic scattering mechanisms Hyperfine interaction.We start by the hyperfine inter- action, which couples electron and nuclear spins, and is considered the main origin of the relatively short deco- herence time in the current ASQ implementations with InAs nanowires [8, 13, 14, 17, 18]. In QSHI realized with InAs/GaSb bilayers, the hyperfine constant is...

  2. [2]

    worst case scenario

    Simulation of dissipation and decoherence effects in the worst case scenario A thorough analysis taking into account microscopi- cally all the above inelastic processes mechanisms leading to DD processes in the proposed ASQ implementation is out of the scope of the present paper. Yet, we would like to provide some quantitative information about the impact...

  3. [3]

    Scattering matrix for a finite barrier Because the magnetic disorder does not couple electron and hole sectors, one can determine the electron and hole wavefunction separately. Let us consider the case of a magnetic barrier m(x) =    0x < x 1 (m⊥ cosϕ ⊥, m⊥ sinϕ ⊥, mz)x 1 < x < x2 0x < x 2 (A42) wherex 1 >−L/2 andx 2 < L/2 are the magnetic domain bound...

  4. [4]

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

    2003

  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]

    Zazunov, R

    A. Zazunov, R. Egger, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin, Anomalous Josephson current through a spin-orbit cou- pled quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 147004 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    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. B86, 214519 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Jakob, K

    M. Jakob, K. Laubscher, P. Vecchio, A. Chatterjee, V. Fatemi, and S. Bosco, Fast readout of quantum dot spin qubits via Andreev spins (2025), arXiv:2506.19762 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Moln´ ar, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger, Spintronics: A spin- based electronics vision for the future, Science294, 1488 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Awschalom and M

    D. Awschalom and M. Flatt´ e, Challenges for semicon- ductor spintronics, Nature Physics3, 153 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    H. Lu, D. F. Bofill, Z. Sun, T. Kanne, J. Nyg ˚ ard, M. Kjaergaard, and V. Fatemi, Andreev spin relaxation time in a shadow-evaporated InAs weak link, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024046 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Park and A

    S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in mul- tichannel Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B96, 125416 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Fauvel, J

    Y. Fauvel, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Opportunities for the direct manipulation of a phase-driven Andreev spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B109, 184515 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    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. X9, 011010 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped su- perconducting spin, Nature Physics16, 1 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    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, Science373, 430 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, R. ˇZitko, L. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. Wesdorp, Y. Liu, L. Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, B. Heck, A. Kou, and C. Andersen, Direct manipulation of a superconducting spin qubit strongly coupled to a transmon qubit, Nature Physics19, 1 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    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, 0...

    2023

  11. [19]

    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, Nature Physics20, 1158 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Pita-Vidal, J

    M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, and C. K. Andersen, Blueprint for all-to-all-connected superconducting spin qubits, PRX Quantum6, 010308 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hoffman, M

    S. Hoffman, M. Hays, K. Serniak, T. Hazard, and C. Tahan, Decoherence in Andreev spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B111, 045304 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Hoffman and C

    S. Hoffman and C. Tahan, Resolving Andreev spin qubits in Germanium-based Josephson junctions (2025), arXiv:2510.23961 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Valentini, O

    M. Valentini, O. Sagi, L. Baghumyan, T. Gijsel, J. Jung, S. Calcaterra, A. Ballabio, J. Aguilera, K. Aggarwal, M. Jan ´ ık, T. Adletzberger, R. Seoane Souto, M. Lei- jnse, J. Danon, C. Schrade, E. Bakkers, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, Parity-conserving cooper-pair...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Leblanc, C

    A. Leblanc, C. Tangchingchai, Z. Sadre Momtaz, E. Kiy- ooka, J.-M. Hartmann, F. Gustavo, J.-L. Thomassin, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, E. Du- mur, S. De Franceschi, and F. Lefloch, Gate- and flux- tunable sin(2ϕ) Josephson element with planar-Ge junc- 1 Scatte...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Kurilovich, T

    P. Kurilovich, T. Vakhtel, T. Connolly, C. Bøttcher, and B. Heck, Andreev spin qubit protected by franck-condon blockade (2025), arXiv:2506.08568 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Laubscher, V

    K. Laubscher, V. Fatemi, and J. Sau, Andreev spin qubits bound to Josephson vortices in spin-orbit coupled pla- nar Josephson junctions (2025), arXiv:2512.11021 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  19. [27]

    Svetogorov, K

    A. Svetogorov, K. Piasotski, W. Belzig, and M. Ple- tyukhov, Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B112, L100508 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    San-Jose and E

    P. San-Jose and E. Prada, Solitonic Andreev spin qubits from Andreev states in Corbino Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Res. , (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum spin Hall ef- fect, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 106802 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    K¨ onig, H

    M. K¨ onig, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Hughes, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, The quantum spin Hall effect: Theory and experiment, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan77, 031007 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Ando, Topological insulator materials, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan82, 102001 (2013)

    Y. Ando, Topological insulator materials, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan82, 102001 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum spin Hall effect and topological phase transition in HgTe quantum wells, Science314, 1757 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    K¨ onig, S

    M. K¨ onig, S. Wiedmann, C. Br¨ une, A. Roth, H. Buh- mann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum spin Hall insulator state in HgTe quantum wells, Science318, 766 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Br¨ une, A

    C. Br¨ une, A. Roth, E. G. Novik, M. K¨ onig, H. Buh- mann, E. M. Hankiewicz, W. Hanke, J. Sinova, and L. W. Molenkamp, Evidence for the ballistic intrinsic spin Hall effect in HgTe nanostructures, Nature Physics6, 448 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Nowack, E

    K. Nowack, E. Spanton, M. Baenninger, M. K¨ onig, J. Kirtley, B. Kalisky, C. Ames, P. Leubner, C. Br¨ une, H. Buhmann, L. Molenkamp, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. Moler, Imaging currents in HgTe quantum wells in the quantum spin Hall regime, Nature materials12(2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Knez, R.-R

    I. Knez, R.-R. Du, and G. Sullivan, Evidence for helical edge modes in inverted InAs/GaSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 136603 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    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. [39]

    Z. Fei, T. Palomaki, S. Wu, W. Zhao, X. Cai, B. Sun, P. Nguyen, J. Finney, X. Xu, and D. Cobden, Edge conduction in monolayer WTe2, Nature Physics13, 683 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    S. Tang, C. Zhang, D. Wong, Z. Pedramrazi, H. Tsai, C.-L. Jia, B. Moritz, M. Claassen, H. Ryu, S. Kahn, J. Jiang, H. Yan, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, R. G. Moore, C. cuk Hwang, C. Hwang, Z. Hussain, Y. Chen, M. M. Ugeda, Z. Liu, X. Xie, T. P. Devereaux, M. F. Crom- mie, S. Mo, and Z....

    2017

  33. [41]

    S. Wu, V. Fatemi, Q. D. Gibson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Obser- vation of the quantum spin Hall effect up to 100 Kelvin in a monolayer crystal, Science359, 76 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    S. Hart, H. Ren, T. Wagner, P. Leubner, M. M¨ uhlbauer, C. Br¨ une, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, and A. Ya- coby, Induced superconductivity in the quantum spin Hall edge, Nature Physics10, 638 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Pribiag, A

    V. Pribiag, A. Beukman, F. Qu, M. Cassidy, C. Charpen- tier, W. Wegscheider, and L. Kouwenhoven, Edge-mode superconductivity in a two-dimensional topological insu- lator, Nature Nanotechnology10, 593 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Wiedenmann, E

    J. Wiedenmann, E. Bocquillon, R. Deacon, S. Hartinger, O. Herrmann, T. Klapwijk, L. Maier, C. Ames, C. Br¨ une, C. Gould, A. Oiwa, K. Ishibashi, S. Tarucha, H. Buh- mann, and L. Molenkamp, 4π-periodic Josephson super- current in HgTe-based topological Josephson junctions, Natu...

    2016

  37. [45]

    Mandal, S

    P. Mandal, S. Mondal, M. Stehno, S. Ili´ c, F. Bergeret, T. Klapwijk, C. Gould, and L. Molenkamp, Magneti- cally tunable supercurrent in dilute magnetic topological insulator-based Josephson junctions, Nature Physics20, 984 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    W. Liu, S. Piatrusha, X. Liang, S. Upadhyay, L. F¨ urst, C. Gould, J. Kleinlein, H. Buhmann, M. Stehno, and L. Molenkamp, Period-doubling in the phase dynamics of a shunted HgTe quantum well Josephson junction, Na- ture Communications16(2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    J. C. Budich, F. Dolcini, P. Recher, and B. Trauzettel, Phonon-induced backscattering in helical edge states, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 086602 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    A. M. Lunde and G. Platero, Helical edge states coupled to a spin bath: Current-induced magnetization, Phys. Rev. B86, 035112 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Del Maestro, T

    A. Del Maestro, T. Hyart, and B. Rosenow, Backscat- tering between helical edge states via dynamic nuclear polarization, Phys. Rev. B87, 165440 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    C.-H. Hsu, P. Stano, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Effects of nuclear spins on the transport properties of the edge of two-dimensional topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B 97, 125432 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Artemenko and V

    S. Artemenko and V. Kaladzhyan, Photogalvanic effects in topological insulators, JETP Letters97(2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Dolcetto, F

    G. Dolcetto, F. Cavaliere, and M. Sassetti, Magnetic ac control of the spin textures in a helical Luttinger liquid, Phys. Rev. B89, 125419 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    D´ ora, J

    B. D´ ora, J. Cayssol, F. Simon, and R. Moessner, Opti- cally engineering the topological properties of a spin Hall insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 056602 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Shamim, W

    S. Shamim, W. Beugeling, P. Shekhar, K. Ben- dias, L. Lunczer, J. Kleinlein, H. Buhmann, and L. Molenkamp, Quantized spin Hall conductance in a magnetically doped two dimensional topological insula- tor, Nature Communications12, 3193 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Liu, X.-L

    C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum anomalous Hall effect in Hg 1−yMnyTe quan- tum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 146802 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    Cheng, The quantum anomalous Hall effect in a topological insulator thin film — the role of magnetic disorder, Europhysics Letters105, 57004 (2014)

    S.-G. Cheng, The quantum anomalous Hall effect in a topological insulator thin film — the role of magnetic disorder, Europhysics Letters105, 57004 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Cr´ epin, B

    F. Cr´ epin, B. Trauzettel, and F. Dolcini, Signatures of majorana bound states in transport properties of hy- brid structures based on helical liquids, Phys. Rev. B 89, 205115 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    C. Wu, B. A. Bernevig, and S.-C. Zhang, Helical liquid and the edge of quantum spin Hall systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 106401 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    Maciejko, C

    J. Maciejko, C. Liu, Y. Oreg, X.-L. Qi, C. Wu, and S.- C. Zhang, Kondo effect in the helical edge liquid of the quantum spin Hall state, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 256803 1 Scattering matrix for a finite barrier 18 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Tanaka, A

    Y. Tanaka, A. Furusaki, and K. A. Matveev, Conduc- tance of a helical edge liquid coupled to a magnetic im- purity, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236402 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Eriksson, A

    E. Eriksson, A. Str¨ om, G. Sharma, and H. Johannesson, Electrical control of the Kondo effect in a helical edge liquid, Phys. Rev. B86, 161103 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    B. L. Altshuler, I. L. Aleiner, and V. I. Yudson, Localiza- tion at the edge of a 2d topological insulator by Kondo impurities with random anisotropies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 086401 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Zheng and M

    J.-H. Zheng and M. A. Cazalilla, Nontrivial interplay of strong disorder and interactions in quantum spin-Hall insulators doped with dilute magnetic impurities, Phys. Rev. B97, 235402 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Universal limit of critical-current fluctuations in mesoscopic Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 3836 (1991)

    1991

  57. [65]

    C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten, Josephson cur- rent through a superconducting quantum point contact shorter than the coherence length, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 3056 (1991)

    1991

  58. [66]

    Ishii, Josephson currents through junctions with nor- mal metal barriers, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 1525 (1970)

    C. Ishii, Josephson currents through junctions with nor- mal metal barriers, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 1525 (1970)

    1970

  59. [67]

    H.-J. Kwon, K. Sengupta, and V. Yakovenko, Fractional a.c. Josephson effect in p- and d-wave superconductors, European Physical Journal B37, 349 (2003)

    2003

  60. [68]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum-spin-Hall- insulator/superconductor junction, Phys. Rev. B 79, 161408 (2009)

    2009

  61. [69]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, D. I. Pikulin, T. Hyart, H. Schome- rus, and J. P. Dahlhaus, Fermion-parity anomaly of the critical supercurrent in the quantum spin-Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 017003 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Barbarino, R

    S. Barbarino, R. Fazio, M. Sassetti, and F. Taddei, Parity dependent Josephson current through a helical Luttinger liquid, New Journal of Physics15, 085025 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Cr´ epin and B

    F. Cr´ epin and B. Trauzettel, Parity measurement in topological Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 077002 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    P. F. Bagwell, Suppression of the Josephson current through a narrow, mesoscopic, semiconductor channel by a single impurity, Phys. Rev. B46, 12573 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    Rossi,Theory of Semiconductor Quantum De- vices: Microscopic Modeling and Simulation Strategies (Springer, 2011)

    F. Rossi,Theory of Semiconductor Quantum De- vices: Microscopic Modeling and Simulation Strategies (Springer, 2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    L¨ upke, D

    F. L¨ upke, D. Waters, S. de la Barrera, M. Widom, D. Mandrus, J.-Q. Yan, R. Feenstra, and B. Hunt, Proximity-induced superconducting gap in the quantum spin hall edge state of monolayer WTe2, Nature Physics 16, 1 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    I. A. Merkulov, A. L. Efros, and M. Rosen, Electron spin relaxation by nuclei in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 205309 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    T. Li, P. Wang, H. Fu, L. Du, K. A. Schreiber, X. Mu, X. Liu, G. Sullivan, G. A. Cs´ athy, X. Lin, and R.-R. Du, Observation of a helical Luttinger liquid in InAs/GaSb quantum spin Hall edges, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 136804 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    J. C. Y. Teo and C. L. Kane, Critical behavior of a point contact in a quantum spin Hall insulator, Phys. Rev. B 79, 235321 (2009)

    2009

  71. [79]

    Str¨ om and H

    A. Str¨ om and H. Johannesson, Tunneling between edge states in a quantum spin Hall system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 096806 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Strunz, J

    J. Strunz, J. Wiedenmann, C. Fleckenstein, L. Lunczer, W. Beugeling, V. M¨ uller, P. Shekhar, N. Traverso Ziani, S. Shamim, J. Kleinlein, H. Buhmann, B. Trauzettel, and L. Molenkamp, Interacting topological edge channels, Na- ture Physics16, 83 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Fazio, F

    R. Fazio, F. W. J. Hekking, and A. A. Odintsov, Joseph- son current through a Luttinger liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1843 (1995)

    1995

  74. [82]

    Fazio, F

    R. Fazio, F. W. J. Hekking, and A. A. Odintsov, dc and ac Josephson effect in a superconductor–Luttinger-liquid– superconductor system, Phys. Rev. B53, 6653 (1996)

    1996

  75. [83]

    D. L. Maslov, M. Stone, P. M. Goldbart, and D. Loss, Josephson current and proximity effect in Luttinger liq- uids, Phys. Rev. B53, 1548 (1996)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.