The Data availability statement of this article has been modified to add the accession link to the raw data. The old Data availability statement read “Materials and data that support the findings of this research are available within the paper. All data are available from the corresponding author upon request”. This has been replaced by “Materials and data that support the findings of this research are available within the paper. The raw data have been deposited at https://zenodo.org/record/4589484#.YEoEOy1Y7Sd”. This has been corrected in both the HTML and PDF version of the article.@en

In this Letter, we reported electrical measurements and numerical simulations of hybrid superconducting–semiconducting nanowires in a magnetic field. We reported plateaus in the conductance at 2e2/h, which we interpreted as evidence for the presence of Majorana zero-modes. However, several inconsistencies were pointed out by Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik between the raw measurement data that was made available to them and the figures that were published in the paper. We therefore re-analysed all the existing raw data for our original measurements and rebuilt the original experimental set-up for a re-calibration of the conductance values. We established that the data in two of the figures (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 4b) had been unnecessarily corrected for charge jumps (corrections that were not mentioned explicitly in the paper), and that one of the figure axes was mislabelled (Fig. 4b). The new conductance calibration shifted the plateau values by 8 per cent, above 2e2/h, which affects all the figures1. When the data are replotted over the full parameter range, including ranges that were not made available earlier, points are outside the 2-sigma error bars. We can therefore no longer claim the observation of a quantized Majorana conductance, and wish to retract this Letter. After informing Nature of this decision, Nature issued an Editorial Expression of Concern2 and initiated the retraction process. In ref. 1 we provide all the raw data underlying the published figures as well as the unpublished datasets. Ref. 1 also contains the analysis methods and a side-by-side comparison between the original and the corrected figures. In ref. 3 we provide a new manuscript with corrected and extended datasets, discussed in the context of new insights on zero-energy states in systems with inhomogeneous potentials and disorder. We thank Piet Brouwer, Klaus Ensslin, David Goldhaber-Gordon and Patrick Lee for the expert evaluation report available via ref. 1. We also thank Michael Wimmer and Bernard van Heck for their help with the analyses. We apologize to the community for insufficient scientific rigour in our original manuscript.@en

In this Letter, we reported electrical measurements and numerical simulations of hybrid superconducting–semiconducting nanowires in a magnetic field. We reported plateaus in the conductance at 2e2/h, which we interpreted as evidence for the presence of Majorana zero-modes. However, several inconsistencies were pointed out by Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik between the raw measurement data that was made available to them and the figures that were published in the paper. We therefore re-analysed all the existing raw data for our original measurements and rebuilt the original experimental set-up for a re-calibration of the conductance values. We established that the data in two of the figures (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 4b) had been unnecessarily corrected for charge jumps (corrections that were not mentioned explicitly in the paper), and that one of the figure axes was mislabelled (Fig. 4b). The new conductance calibration shifted the plateau values by 8 per cent, above 2e2/h, which affects all the figures1. When the data are replotted over the full parameter range, including ranges that were not made available earlier, points are outside the 2-sigma error bars. We can therefore no longer claim the observation of a quantized Majorana conductance, and wish to retract this Letter. After informing Nature of this decision, Nature issued an Editorial Expression of Concern2 and initiated the retraction process. In ref. 1 we provide all the raw data underlying the published figures as well as the unpublished datasets. Ref. 1 also contains the analysis methods and a side-by-side comparison between the original and the corrected figures. In ref. 3 we provide a new manuscript with corrected and extended datasets, discussed in the context of new insights on zero-energy states in systems with inhomogeneous potentials and disorder. We thank Piet Brouwer, Klaus Ensslin, David Goldhaber-Gordon and Patrick Lee for the expert evaluation report available via ref. 1. We also thank Michael Wimmer and Bernard van Heck for their help with the analyses. We apologize to the community for insufficient scientific rigour in our original manuscript.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

The authors of the paper “Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices”1 wish to retract this work. When preparing the underlying data for public release2, it was discovered that some data had been inappropriately deleted or cropped when preparing the final published figures, and we promptly alerted the editors of Nature. We found unjustified data removal and cropping in Figures 4a and c, and Extended Data Figures 7 and 8, which affect the agreement between the theoretical curves and the experimental data and the claims of ballistic transport. We are accordingly retracting the paper. The authors stand by all the other data, and their contribution to advanced nanowire quantum devices. All authors have agreed to this retraction.@en

Correction to: Nature Nanotechnologyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-017-0032-8, published online 15 January 2018. The Letter reports Majorana signatures in hybrid InSb semiconductor nanowire–NbTiN superconductor devices. The devices exhibit a conductance plateau near the conductance quantum 2e2/h at bias voltages above the superconducting gap (normal conductance), accompanied by an enhanced Andreev conductance at bias voltages below the superconducting gap (subgap conductance). We have attributed these experimental observations to ballistic transport as supported by a theoretical analysis1, finding mean free paths on the order of or larger than the effective wire segment (the segment covered by the superconducting electrode). Here, we correct errors discovered on reanalysis of the original data2, following concerns raised by readers. Due to the age of the paper, it cannot be corrected directly in the original publication, thus the updates are provided via this amendment. We provide additional discussion on the claim of ballistic transport so as to avoid misinterpretations. External peer review of the reanalysis concluded that the claims in the Letter remain. An extended public repository including data obtained from nanowire devices that were not included in the publication can be found in ref. 2. We note the lack of a series of flat and precisely quantized conductance plateaus (a staircase), a clear ballistic transport characteristic (see the two newly included Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7 showing larger voltage ranges of Fig. 1 and the original Supplementary Fig. 5). Our earlier studies on ballistic transport in nanowire devices3,4 indicate that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the wire axis, which requires ideal (Landauer) reservoirs interfacing the ballistic region, absorbing charge carriers with near-unit probability. Similar to our earlier studies, ohmic contacts in the present nanowire devices do not satisfy the conditions of Landauer reservoirs. However, the transport in the effective wire segment can nevertheless be ballistic whose characteristic is a plateau feature near 2e2/h in normal conductance together with an enhanced Andreev conductance. Importantly, precise quantization is not realistic, prevented by the two-terminal device geometry, inevitably decreasing the conductance. In summary, a plateau feature with an enhanced Andreev conductance together with our theoretical analyses indicate that a large fraction of transport is ballistic over distances of the order of our device length. We add a discussion to the main text of the Letter as follows: “… followed by a dip in conductance due to channel mixing20 [ref. 1 below]. We do not observe higher plateaus (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7), which we attribute to the contacts not satisfying the conditions of Landauer reservoirs, resulting in residual scattering more effective at larger conductance. This is in line with our earlier studies25,39 [refs. 4,5 below] which indicated that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a perpendicular magnetic field. From the absence of quantum dots, the observed induced gap …”. The following text should also have been included in the abstract: “… exhibiting clear ballistic transport properties manifested by a conductance plateau with an Andreev enhancement, albeit lacking a quantized conductance staircase hindered by the device geometry.” The conductance values reported in the publication are ~8% lower (near 2e2/h) than the actual value (corrected Fig. 1). This deviation is due to a drop in the gain of the current-to-voltage amplifier at an ac excitation frequency of 67 Hz5. As a result, there is a slight change in the Andreev conductance enhancement factor and the superconducting contact transparency extracted from the enhancement (a comparison between the values quoted in the publication and the corrected ones is given below in B). The general conclusions do not rely on the exact value of the conductance as precise quantization is not expected due to the two-terminal device geometry. The subtracted series resistance of 3 kΩ in the original Fig. 1 was an overestimation (see corrected Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Data file). The subtraction of 3 kΩ was not mentioned in the original publication. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. 1 is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. For all the figures in the original publication except Fig. 1, we either subtracted a contact resistance value of 0.5 kΩ, which is an underestimation1, or no resistance at all. We note that in tunneling measurements the overall resistance is significantly higher than the normal metal contact resistance whose contribution can therefore be neglected. Figure 1, however, was used to estimate the superconducting contact transparency and Andreev enhancement in the high conductance regime, requiring a realistic exclusion of the contact resistance. Following our previous paper4, which found normal metal contact resistance values between 1.5–3.25 kΩ per contact and was based on fitting the measured conductance using theory (single mode interfacing a superconductor), which provided reasonable agreement after excluding 3 kΩ, we subtracted 3 kΩ to exclude the resistance of the normal metal contact. During our reanalysis, we have discovered that the minimum resistance of this device at the largest applied gate voltages is 2.9 kΩ, a value providing an upper bound on the contact resistance. Here, 2.9 kΩ would be the contact resistance under the assumption that the nanowire itself has zero resistance at largest gate voltages. The contact resistance can be estimated with an alternative method by subtracting a series resistance to match the observed conductance plateau at bias voltages above the superconducting gap to the expected quantized value, a procedure not done in the original publication. By taking the conductance averaged at positive and negative |V| ~ 1.7 mV (around the largest bias voltages available for this analysis) we find that the quantized value is reached for a contact resistance of 0.77 kΩ. (Considering only the positive bias and separately only the negative bias results in a range of 0–2.13 kΩ for the contact resistance.) In our corrected estimate of the contact resistance, we have applied the calibration procedure5 that corrects for ac circuit effects, uses calibrated values for the series resistance of the setup where Fig. 1 was measured and directly corrects the error listed in A above. Upon reanalysis we estimate the following contact resistance values, enhancement factors and transparencies: (Table presented.) Contact resistance Enhancement factor Transparency Lower bound 0 kΩ 1.26 0.88 Conservative estimation1 (used in corrected Fig. 1) 0.5 kΩ 1.32 0.90 Current best estimate 0.77 kΩ 1.36 0.90 Original estimate in paper 3 kΩ >1.5 >0.93 The corrected superconducting contact transparency value of 0.9 does not affect the claim of high transparency. The claim of ballistic transport does not rest on the exact value of the conductance plateau and hence is also unaffected. The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: “Contact resistance treatment. A fixed-value series resistance of 0.5 kΩ has been subtracted in Figs. 1 and 4, Supplementary Figs. 1, 2b,c and 4–9 to account for the contact resistance of the normal metal lead. This value is smaller than the lowest contact resistance we have obtained for InSb nanowire devices25 (ref. 4 below), which makes the interface transparency estimated from Fig. 1 a lower bound. For the remaining figures, no series resistance has been subtracted to account for the normal metal contact resistance.” In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. SI5 (now Fig. SI6) is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. Original Supplementary Fig. 1f (now Supplementary Fig. 2f): The offset mentioned in the caption is erroneously given as 0.006 × 2e2/h but is 0.01 × 2e2/h. Original Supplementary Fig. 4a,b (now Supplementary Fig. 5a,b) were indicated to present data from Fig. 2a (or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). This is incorrect. The data used are from the original Supplementary Fig. 1b (now Supplementary Fig. 2b) which has the same measurement settings as in Fig. 2a except the barrier gate is –1.5 V (the barrier gate is –1.4 V in Fig. 2a or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). In the original panels c–e of Supplementary Fig. 7 (now Supplementary Fig. 9c–e) the bias polarity is mistakenly inverted.@en

Correction to: Nature Nanotechnologyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-017-0032-8, published online 15 January 2018. The Letter reports Majorana signatures in hybrid InSb semiconductor nanowire–NbTiN superconductor devices. The devices exhibit a conductance plateau near the conductance quantum 2e2/h at bias voltages above the superconducting gap (normal conductance), accompanied by an enhanced Andreev conductance at bias voltages below the superconducting gap (subgap conductance). We have attributed these experimental observations to ballistic transport as supported by a theoretical analysis1, finding mean free paths on the order of or larger than the effective wire segment (the segment covered by the superconducting electrode). Here, we correct errors discovered on reanalysis of the original data2, following concerns raised by readers. Due to the age of the paper, it cannot be corrected directly in the original publication, thus the updates are provided via this amendment. We provide additional discussion on the claim of ballistic transport so as to avoid misinterpretations. External peer review of the reanalysis concluded that the claims in the Letter remain. An extended public repository including data obtained from nanowire devices that were not included in the publication can be found in ref. 2. We note the lack of a series of flat and precisely quantized conductance plateaus (a staircase), a clear ballistic transport characteristic (see the two newly included Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7 showing larger voltage ranges of Fig. 1 and the original Supplementary Fig. 5). Our earlier studies on ballistic transport in nanowire devices3,4 indicate that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the wire axis, which requires ideal (Landauer) reservoirs interfacing the ballistic region, absorbing charge carriers with near-unit probability. Similar to our earlier studies, ohmic contacts in the present nanowire devices do not satisfy the conditions of Landauer reservoirs. However, the transport in the effective wire segment can nevertheless be ballistic whose characteristic is a plateau feature near 2e2/h in normal conductance together with an enhanced Andreev conductance. Importantly, precise quantization is not realistic, prevented by the two-terminal device geometry, inevitably decreasing the conductance. In summary, a plateau feature with an enhanced Andreev conductance together with our theoretical analyses indicate that a large fraction of transport is ballistic over distances of the order of our device length. We add a discussion to the main text of the Letter as follows: “… followed by a dip in conductance due to channel mixing20 [ref. 1 below]. We do not observe higher plateaus (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7), which we attribute to the contacts not satisfying the conditions of Landauer reservoirs, resulting in residual scattering more effective at larger conductance. This is in line with our earlier studies25,39 [refs. 4,5 below] which indicated that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a perpendicular magnetic field. From the absence of quantum dots, the observed induced gap …”. The following text should also have been included in the abstract: “… exhibiting clear ballistic transport properties manifested by a conductance plateau with an Andreev enhancement, albeit lacking a quantized conductance staircase hindered by the device geometry.” The conductance values reported in the publication are ~8% lower (near 2e2/h) than the actual value (corrected Fig. 1). This deviation is due to a drop in the gain of the current-to-voltage amplifier at an ac excitation frequency of 67 Hz5. As a result, there is a slight change in the Andreev conductance enhancement factor and the superconducting contact transparency extracted from the enhancement (a comparison between the values quoted in the publication and the corrected ones is given below in B). The general conclusions do not rely on the exact value of the conductance as precise quantization is not expected due to the two-terminal device geometry. The subtracted series resistance of 3 kΩ in the original Fig. 1 was an overestimation (see corrected Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Data file). The subtraction of 3 kΩ was not mentioned in the original publication. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. 1 is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. For all the figures in the original publication except Fig. 1, we either subtracted a contact resistance value of 0.5 kΩ, which is an underestimation1, or no resistance at all. We note that in tunneling measurements the overall resistance is significantly higher than the normal metal contact resistance whose contribution can therefore be neglected. Figure 1, however, was used to estimate the superconducting contact transparency and Andreev enhancement in the high conductance regime, requiring a realistic exclusion of the contact resistance. Following our previous paper4, which found normal metal contact resistance values between 1.5–3.25 kΩ per contact and was based on fitting the measured conductance using theory (single mode interfacing a superconductor), which provided reasonable agreement after excluding 3 kΩ, we subtracted 3 kΩ to exclude the resistance of the normal metal contact. During our reanalysis, we have discovered that the minimum resistance of this device at the largest applied gate voltages is 2.9 kΩ, a value providing an upper bound on the contact resistance. Here, 2.9 kΩ would be the contact resistance under the assumption that the nanowire itself has zero resistance at largest gate voltages. The contact resistance can be estimated with an alternative method by subtracting a series resistance to match the observed conductance plateau at bias voltages above the superconducting gap to the expected quantized value, a procedure not done in the original publication. By taking the conductance averaged at positive and negative |V| ~ 1.7 mV (around the largest bias voltages available for this analysis) we find that the quantized value is reached for a contact resistance of 0.77 kΩ. (Considering only the positive bias and separately only the negative bias results in a range of 0–2.13 kΩ for the contact resistance.) In our corrected estimate of the contact resistance, we have applied the calibration procedure5 that corrects for ac circuit effects, uses calibrated values for the series resistance of the setup where Fig. 1 was measured and directly corrects the error listed in A above. Upon reanalysis we estimate the following contact resistance values, enhancement factors and transparencies: (Table presented.) Contact resistance Enhancement factor Transparency Lower bound 0 kΩ 1.26 0.88 Conservative estimation1 (used in corrected Fig. 1) 0.5 kΩ 1.32 0.90 Current best estimate 0.77 kΩ 1.36 0.90 Original estimate in paper 3 kΩ >1.5 >0.93 The corrected superconducting contact transparency value of 0.9 does not affect the claim of high transparency. The claim of ballistic transport does not rest on the exact value of the conductance plateau and hence is also unaffected. The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: “Contact resistance treatment. A fixed-value series resistance of 0.5 kΩ has been subtracted in Figs. 1 and 4, Supplementary Figs. 1, 2b,c and 4–9 to account for the contact resistance of the normal metal lead. This value is smaller than the lowest contact resistance we have obtained for InSb nanowire devices25 (ref. 4 below), which makes the interface transparency estimated from Fig. 1 a lower bound. For the remaining figures, no series resistance has been subtracted to account for the normal metal contact resistance.” In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. SI5 (now Fig. SI6) is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. Original Supplementary Fig. 1f (now Supplementary Fig. 2f): The offset mentioned in the caption is erroneously given as 0.006 × 2e2/h but is 0.01 × 2e2/h. Original Supplementary Fig. 4a,b (now Supplementary Fig. 5a,b) were indicated to present data from Fig. 2a (or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). This is incorrect. The data used are from the original Supplementary Fig. 1b (now Supplementary Fig. 2b) which has the same measurement settings as in Fig. 2a except the barrier gate is –1.5 V (the barrier gate is –1.4 V in Fig. 2a or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). In the original panels c–e of Supplementary Fig. 7 (now Supplementary Fig. 9c–e) the bias polarity is mistakenly inverted.@en

Correction to: Nature Nanotechnologyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-017-0032-8, published online 15 January 2018. The Letter reports Majorana signatures in hybrid InSb semiconductor nanowire–NbTiN superconductor devices. The devices exhibit a conductance plateau near the conductance quantum 2e2/h at bias voltages above the superconducting gap (normal conductance), accompanied by an enhanced Andreev conductance at bias voltages below the superconducting gap (subgap conductance). We have attributed these experimental observations to ballistic transport as supported by a theoretical analysis1, finding mean free paths on the order of or larger than the effective wire segment (the segment covered by the superconducting electrode). Here, we correct errors discovered on reanalysis of the original data2, following concerns raised by readers. Due to the age of the paper, it cannot be corrected directly in the original publication, thus the updates are provided via this amendment. We provide additional discussion on the claim of ballistic transport so as to avoid misinterpretations. External peer review of the reanalysis concluded that the claims in the Letter remain. An extended public repository including data obtained from nanowire devices that were not included in the publication can be found in ref. 2. We note the lack of a series of flat and precisely quantized conductance plateaus (a staircase), a clear ballistic transport characteristic (see the two newly included Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7 showing larger voltage ranges of Fig. 1 and the original Supplementary Fig. 5). Our earlier studies on ballistic transport in nanowire devices3,4 indicate that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the wire axis, which requires ideal (Landauer) reservoirs interfacing the ballistic region, absorbing charge carriers with near-unit probability. Similar to our earlier studies, ohmic contacts in the present nanowire devices do not satisfy the conditions of Landauer reservoirs. However, the transport in the effective wire segment can nevertheless be ballistic whose characteristic is a plateau feature near 2e2/h in normal conductance together with an enhanced Andreev conductance. Importantly, precise quantization is not realistic, prevented by the two-terminal device geometry, inevitably decreasing the conductance. In summary, a plateau feature with an enhanced Andreev conductance together with our theoretical analyses indicate that a large fraction of transport is ballistic over distances of the order of our device length. We add a discussion to the main text of the Letter as follows: “… followed by a dip in conductance due to channel mixing20 [ref. 1 below]. We do not observe higher plateaus (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7), which we attribute to the contacts not satisfying the conditions of Landauer reservoirs, resulting in residual scattering more effective at larger conductance. This is in line with our earlier studies25,39 [refs. 4,5 below] which indicated that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a perpendicular magnetic field. From the absence of quantum dots, the observed induced gap …”. The following text should also have been included in the abstract: “… exhibiting clear ballistic transport properties manifested by a conductance plateau with an Andreev enhancement, albeit lacking a quantized conductance staircase hindered by the device geometry.” The conductance values reported in the publication are ~8% lower (near 2e2/h) than the actual value (corrected Fig. 1). This deviation is due to a drop in the gain of the current-to-voltage amplifier at an ac excitation frequency of 67 Hz5. As a result, there is a slight change in the Andreev conductance enhancement factor and the superconducting contact transparency extracted from the enhancement (a comparison between the values quoted in the publication and the corrected ones is given below in B). The general conclusions do not rely on the exact value of the conductance as precise quantization is not expected due to the two-terminal device geometry. The subtracted series resistance of 3 kΩ in the original Fig. 1 was an overestimation (see corrected Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Data file). The subtraction of 3 kΩ was not mentioned in the original publication. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. 1 is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. For all the figures in the original publication except Fig. 1, we either subtracted a contact resistance value of 0.5 kΩ, which is an underestimation1, or no resistance at all. We note that in tunneling measurements the overall resistance is significantly higher than the normal metal contact resistance whose contribution can therefore be neglected. Figure 1, however, was used to estimate the superconducting contact transparency and Andreev enhancement in the high conductance regime, requiring a realistic exclusion of the contact resistance. Following our previous paper4, which found normal metal contact resistance values between 1.5–3.25 kΩ per contact and was based on fitting the measured conductance using theory (single mode interfacing a superconductor), which provided reasonable agreement after excluding 3 kΩ, we subtracted 3 kΩ to exclude the resistance of the normal metal contact. During our reanalysis, we have discovered that the minimum resistance of this device at the largest applied gate voltages is 2.9 kΩ, a value providing an upper bound on the contact resistance. Here, 2.9 kΩ would be the contact resistance under the assumption that the nanowire itself has zero resistance at largest gate voltages. The contact resistance can be estimated with an alternative method by subtracting a series resistance to match the observed conductance plateau at bias voltages above the superconducting gap to the expected quantized value, a procedure not done in the original publication. By taking the conductance averaged at positive and negative |V| ~ 1.7 mV (around the largest bias voltages available for this analysis) we find that the quantized value is reached for a contact resistance of 0.77 kΩ. (Considering only the positive bias and separately only the negative bias results in a range of 0–2.13 kΩ for the contact resistance.) In our corrected estimate of the contact resistance, we have applied the calibration procedure5 that corrects for ac circuit effects, uses calibrated values for the series resistance of the setup where Fig. 1 was measured and directly corrects the error listed in A above. Upon reanalysis we estimate the following contact resistance values, enhancement factors and transparencies: (Table presented.) Contact resistance Enhancement factor Transparency Lower bound 0 kΩ 1.26 0.88 Conservative estimation1 (used in corrected Fig. 1) 0.5 kΩ 1.32 0.90 Current best estimate 0.77 kΩ 1.36 0.90 Original estimate in paper 3 kΩ >1.5 >0.93 The corrected superconducting contact transparency value of 0.9 does not affect the claim of high transparency. The claim of ballistic transport does not rest on the exact value of the conductance plateau and hence is also unaffected. The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: “Contact resistance treatment. A fixed-value series resistance of 0.5 kΩ has been subtracted in Figs. 1 and 4, Supplementary Figs. 1, 2b,c and 4–9 to account for the contact resistance of the normal metal lead. This value is smaller than the lowest contact resistance we have obtained for InSb nanowire devices25 (ref. 4 below), which makes the interface transparency estimated from Fig. 1 a lower bound. For the remaining figures, no series resistance has been subtracted to account for the normal metal contact resistance.” In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. SI5 (now Fig. SI6) is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. Original Supplementary Fig. 1f (now Supplementary Fig. 2f): The offset mentioned in the caption is erroneously given as 0.006 × 2e2/h but is 0.01 × 2e2/h. Original Supplementary Fig. 4a,b (now Supplementary Fig. 5a,b) were indicated to present data from Fig. 2a (or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). This is incorrect. The data used are from the original Supplementary Fig. 1b (now Supplementary Fig. 2b) which has the same measurement settings as in Fig. 2a except the barrier gate is –1.5 V (the barrier gate is –1.4 V in Fig. 2a or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). In the original panels c–e of Supplementary Fig. 7 (now Supplementary Fig. 9c–e) the bias polarity is mistakenly inverted.@en

Correction to: Nature Nanotechnologyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-017-0032-8, published online 15 January 2018. The Letter reports Majorana signatures in hybrid InSb semiconductor nanowire–NbTiN superconductor devices. The devices exhibit a conductance plateau near the conductance quantum 2e2/h at bias voltages above the superconducting gap (normal conductance), accompanied by an enhanced Andreev conductance at bias voltages below the superconducting gap (subgap conductance). We have attributed these experimental observations to ballistic transport as supported by a theoretical analysis1, finding mean free paths on the order of or larger than the effective wire segment (the segment covered by the superconducting electrode). Here, we correct errors discovered on reanalysis of the original data2, following concerns raised by readers. Due to the age of the paper, it cannot be corrected directly in the original publication, thus the updates are provided via this amendment. We provide additional discussion on the claim of ballistic transport so as to avoid misinterpretations. External peer review of the reanalysis concluded that the claims in the Letter remain. An extended public repository including data obtained from nanowire devices that were not included in the publication can be found in ref. 2. We note the lack of a series of flat and precisely quantized conductance plateaus (a staircase), a clear ballistic transport characteristic (see the two newly included Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7 showing larger voltage ranges of Fig. 1 and the original Supplementary Fig. 5). Our earlier studies on ballistic transport in nanowire devices3,4 indicate that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a magnetic field perpendicular to the wire axis, which requires ideal (Landauer) reservoirs interfacing the ballistic region, absorbing charge carriers with near-unit probability. Similar to our earlier studies, ohmic contacts in the present nanowire devices do not satisfy the conditions of Landauer reservoirs. However, the transport in the effective wire segment can nevertheless be ballistic whose characteristic is a plateau feature near 2e2/h in normal conductance together with an enhanced Andreev conductance. Importantly, precise quantization is not realistic, prevented by the two-terminal device geometry, inevitably decreasing the conductance. In summary, a plateau feature with an enhanced Andreev conductance together with our theoretical analyses indicate that a large fraction of transport is ballistic over distances of the order of our device length. We add a discussion to the main text of the Letter as follows: “… followed by a dip in conductance due to channel mixing20 [ref. 1 below]. We do not observe higher plateaus (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 7), which we attribute to the contacts not satisfying the conditions of Landauer reservoirs, resulting in residual scattering more effective at larger conductance. This is in line with our earlier studies25,39 [refs. 4,5 below] which indicated that vapour–liquid–solid nanowires do not have the proper geometry for observing a conductance staircase without the application of a perpendicular magnetic field. From the absence of quantum dots, the observed induced gap …”. The following text should also have been included in the abstract: “… exhibiting clear ballistic transport properties manifested by a conductance plateau with an Andreev enhancement, albeit lacking a quantized conductance staircase hindered by the device geometry.” The conductance values reported in the publication are ~8% lower (near 2e2/h) than the actual value (corrected Fig. 1). This deviation is due to a drop in the gain of the current-to-voltage amplifier at an ac excitation frequency of 67 Hz5. As a result, there is a slight change in the Andreev conductance enhancement factor and the superconducting contact transparency extracted from the enhancement (a comparison between the values quoted in the publication and the corrected ones is given below in B). The general conclusions do not rely on the exact value of the conductance as precise quantization is not expected due to the two-terminal device geometry. The subtracted series resistance of 3 kΩ in the original Fig. 1 was an overestimation (see corrected Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Data file). The subtraction of 3 kΩ was not mentioned in the original publication. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. 1 is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. For all the figures in the original publication except Fig. 1, we either subtracted a contact resistance value of 0.5 kΩ, which is an underestimation1, or no resistance at all. We note that in tunneling measurements the overall resistance is significantly higher than the normal metal contact resistance whose contribution can therefore be neglected. Figure 1, however, was used to estimate the superconducting contact transparency and Andreev enhancement in the high conductance regime, requiring a realistic exclusion of the contact resistance. Following our previous paper4, which found normal metal contact resistance values between 1.5–3.25 kΩ per contact and was based on fitting the measured conductance using theory (single mode interfacing a superconductor), which provided reasonable agreement after excluding 3 kΩ, we subtracted 3 kΩ to exclude the resistance of the normal metal contact. During our reanalysis, we have discovered that the minimum resistance of this device at the largest applied gate voltages is 2.9 kΩ, a value providing an upper bound on the contact resistance. Here, 2.9 kΩ would be the contact resistance under the assumption that the nanowire itself has zero resistance at largest gate voltages. The contact resistance can be estimated with an alternative method by subtracting a series resistance to match the observed conductance plateau at bias voltages above the superconducting gap to the expected quantized value, a procedure not done in the original publication. By taking the conductance averaged at positive and negative |V| ~ 1.7 mV (around the largest bias voltages available for this analysis) we find that the quantized value is reached for a contact resistance of 0.77 kΩ. (Considering only the positive bias and separately only the negative bias results in a range of 0–2.13 kΩ for the contact resistance.) In our corrected estimate of the contact resistance, we have applied the calibration procedure5 that corrects for ac circuit effects, uses calibrated values for the series resistance of the setup where Fig. 1 was measured and directly corrects the error listed in A above. Upon reanalysis we estimate the following contact resistance values, enhancement factors and transparencies: (Table presented.) Contact resistance Enhancement factor Transparency Lower bound 0 kΩ 1.26 0.88 Conservative estimation1 (used in corrected Fig. 1) 0.5 kΩ 1.32 0.90 Current best estimate 0.77 kΩ 1.36 0.90 Original estimate in paper 3 kΩ >1.5 >0.93 The corrected superconducting contact transparency value of 0.9 does not affect the claim of high transparency. The claim of ballistic transport does not rest on the exact value of the conductance plateau and hence is also unaffected. The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: The original Methods section omits the indication of subtracted series resistances which account for the normal metal contact resistance in each figure. The following is included here for the corrected Methods: “Contact resistance treatment. A fixed-value series resistance of 0.5 kΩ has been subtracted in Figs. 1 and 4, Supplementary Figs. 1, 2b,c and 4–9 to account for the contact resistance of the normal metal lead. This value is smaller than the lowest contact resistance we have obtained for InSb nanowire devices25 (ref. 4 below), which makes the interface transparency estimated from Fig. 1 a lower bound. For the remaining figures, no series resistance has been subtracted to account for the normal metal contact resistance.” In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. In the original Supplementary Fig. 5 (now Supplementary Fig. 6), a charge jump was corrected by removal of 12 line traces (corresponding to +0.15 V to +0.04 V in gate voltage in the measured data) and offset of the gate voltage axis by 0.12 V after the charge jump (–1 V to +0.03 V) to maintain continuity of the axis. This processing was not mentioned in the original publication. The corrected Supplementary Fig. 6 excludes this processing and represents the data as measured. A comparison of the original and corrected Fig. SI5 (now Fig. SI6) is presented in a Supplementary Data file accompanying this correction. Original Supplementary Fig. 1f (now Supplementary Fig. 2f): The offset mentioned in the caption is erroneously given as 0.006 × 2e2/h but is 0.01 × 2e2/h. Original Supplementary Fig. 4a,b (now Supplementary Fig. 5a,b) were indicated to present data from Fig. 2a (or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). This is incorrect. The data used are from the original Supplementary Fig. 1b (now Supplementary Fig. 2b) which has the same measurement settings as in Fig. 2a except the barrier gate is –1.5 V (the barrier gate is –1.4 V in Fig. 2a or original Supplementary Fig. 1a). In the original panels c–e of Supplementary Fig. 7 (now Supplementary Fig. 9c–e) the bias polarity is mistakenly inverted.@en