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 This has been replaced by “Materials and data that support the findings of this research are available within the paper.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 In ref. 1 we provide all the raw data underlying the published figures as well as the unpublished datasets.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

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

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

We study the effect of external electric fields on superconductor-semiconductor coupling by measuring the electron transport in InSb semiconductor nanowires coupled to an epitaxially grown Al superconductor. We find that the gate voltage induced electric fields can greatly modify the coupling strength, which has consequences for the proximity induced superconducting gap, effective g-factor, and spin-orbit coupling, which all play a key role in understanding Majorana physics. We further show that level repulsion due to spin-orbit coupling in a finite size system can lead to seemingly stable zero bias conductance peaks, which mimic the behavior of Majorana zero modes. Our results improve the understanding of realistic Majorana nanowire systems.@en

Quantum technology is a promising area of research, with the quantum computer as the prime example. Quantum computers can perform calculations thought to be impossible by conventional means. The fundamental building block of a quantum computer is a qubit, which is a quantumsystem which can be used to process and store quantuminformation. Most qubits can hold on to this quantuminformation for only a short period of time due to environmental noise. The resulting errors can be mitigated by storing the information in multiple qubits. An alternative approach uses qubits which are insensitive to noise. This can be achieved by using topological quantumstates. An example of a topological quantum state is the Majorana zero mode. Majorana zero modes can be realized in a 1D system with strong spin-orbit coupling and superconductivity, in an external magnetic field. Such materials are not known in nature, but can be engineered by coupling a semiconductor nanowire to a superconducting material. To use these Majorana zero modes as qubits, multiple nanowires have to be connected to each other in a 2D network. The experiments described in this thesis aim to develop such networks based on InSb (indium antimonide) semiconductor nanowires. A few necessary theoretical concepts are briefly introduced. Subsequently, the nanofabrication and electrical measurement techniques used to study the nanowires are described, with emphasis on the challenges related to working with hybrid semiconductorsuperconductor (InSb-Al)materials. Two methods are then presented to realize nanowire networks. Transport experiments on these networks show strong phase coherence and a hard superconducting gap, demonstrating the high quality of the material. In addition to the intrinsic quality of the material, the electrostatic environment plays an important role for the functionality of hybrid materials. The coupling between the superconductor (Al) and the semiconductor (InSb) is studied by applying an external electric field. This electric field influences material properties such as the spin-orbit coupling and the Landé g -factor. An essential property of the Majorana zero modes is the fact that their state cannot be described locally. Exploratory experiments with the aim of demonstrating this non-locality are described, followed by theoretical simulations demonstrating the limitations of common experimental practice based on local measurements. Finally, several suggestions for future experiments are made, aimed at demonstrating and manipulatingMajorana zero modes.@en

Majorana zero-modes - a type of localized quasiparticle - hold great promise for topological quantum computing. Tunnelling spectroscopy in electrical transport is the primary tool for identifying the presence of Majorana zero-modes, for instance as a zero-bias peak in differential conductance. The height of the Majorana zero-bias peak is predicted to be quantized at the universal conductance value of 2e 2 /h at zero temperature (where e is the charge of an electron and h is the Planck constant), as a direct consequence of the famous Majorana symmetry in which a particle is its own antiparticle. The Majorana symmetry protects the quantization against disorder, interactions and variations in the tunnel coupling. Previous experiments, however, have mostly shown zero-bias peaks much smaller than 2e 2 /h, with a recent observation of a peak height close to 2e 2 /h. Here we report a quantized conductance plateau at 2e 2 /h in the zero-bias conductance measured in indium antimonide semiconductor nanowires covered with an aluminium superconducting shell. The height of our zero-bias peak remains constant despite changing parameters such as the magnetic field and tunnel coupling, indicating that it is a quantized conductance plateau. We distinguish this quantized Majorana peak from possible non-Majorana origins by investigating its robustness to electric and magnetic fields as well as its temperature dependence. The observation of a quantized conductance plateau strongly supports the existence of Majorana zero-modes in the system, consequently paving the way for future braiding experiments that could lead to topological quantum computing.@en

Semiconductor nanowires are ideal for realizing various low-dimensional quantum devices. In particular, topological phases of matter hosting non-Abelian quasiparticles (such as anyons) can emerge when a semiconductor nanowire with strong spin-orbit coupling is brought into contact with a superconductor. To exploit the potential of non-Abelian anyons - which are key elements of topological quantum computing - fully, they need to be exchanged in a well-controlled braiding operation. Essential hardware for braiding is a network of crystalline nanowires coupled to superconducting islands. Here we demonstrate a technique for generic bottom-up synthesis of complex quantum devices with a special focus on nanowire networks with a predefined number of superconducting islands. Structural analysis confirms the high crystalline quality of the nanowire junctions, as well as an epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor interface. Quantum transport measurements of nanowire 'hashtags' reveal Aharonov-Bohm and weak-antilocalization effects, indicating a phase-coherent system with strong spin-orbit coupling. In addition, a proximity-induced hard superconducting gap (with vanishing sub-gap conductance) is demonstrated in these hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowires, highlighting the successful materials development necessary for a first braiding experiment. Our approach opens up new avenues for the realization of epitaxial three-dimensional quantum architectures which have the potential to become key components of various quantum devices.@en

Semiconductor nanowires are ideal for realizing various low-dimensional quantum devices. In particular, topological phases of matter hosting non-Abelian quasiparticles (such as anyons) can emerge when a semiconductor nanowire with strong spin-orbit coupling is brought into contact with a superconductor. To exploit the potential of non-Abelian anyons - which are key elements of topological quantum computing - fully, they need to be exchanged in a well-controlled braiding operation. Essential hardware for braiding is a network of crystalline nanowires coupled to superconducting islands. Here we demonstrate a technique for generic bottom-up synthesis of complex quantum devices with a special focus on nanowire networks with a predefined number of superconducting islands. Structural analysis confirms the high crystalline quality of the nanowire junctions, as well as an epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor interface. Quantum transport measurements of nanowire 'hashtags' reveal Aharonov-Bohm and weak-antilocalization effects, indicating a phase-coherent system with strong spin-orbit coupling. In addition, a proximity-induced hard superconducting gap (with vanishing sub-gap conductance) is demonstrated in these hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowires, highlighting the successful materials development necessary for a first braiding experiment. Our approach opens up new avenues for the realization of epitaxial three-dimensional quantum architectures which have the potential to become key components of various quantum devices.@en

Semiconductor nanowires are ideal for realizing various low-dimensional quantum devices. In particular, topological phases of matter hosting non-Abelian quasiparticles (such as anyons) can emerge when a semiconductor nanowire with strong spin-orbit coupling is brought into contact with a superconductor. To exploit the potential of non-Abelian anyons - which are key elements of topological quantum computing - fully, they need to be exchanged in a well-controlled braiding operation. Essential hardware for braiding is a network of crystalline nanowires coupled to superconducting islands. Here we demonstrate a technique for generic bottom-up synthesis of complex quantum devices with a special focus on nanowire networks with a predefined number of superconducting islands. Structural analysis confirms the high crystalline quality of the nanowire junctions, as well as an epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor interface. Quantum transport measurements of nanowire 'hashtags' reveal Aharonov-Bohm and weak-antilocalization effects, indicating a phase-coherent system with strong spin-orbit coupling. In addition, a proximity-induced hard superconducting gap (with vanishing sub-gap conductance) is demonstrated in these hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowires, highlighting the successful materials development necessary for a first braiding experiment. Our approach opens up new avenues for the realization of epitaxial three-dimensional quantum architectures which have the potential to become key components of various quantum devices.@en

Ballistic electron transport is a key requirement for existence of a topological phase transition in proximitized InSb nanowires. However, measurements of quantized conductance as direct evidence of ballistic transport have so far been obscured due to the increased chance of backscattering in one-dimensional nanowires. We show that by improving the nanowire-metal interface as well as the dielectric environment we can consistently achieve conductance quantization at zero magnetic field. Additionally we study the contribution of orbital effects to the sub-band dispersion for different orientation of the magnetic field, observing a near-degeneracy between the second and third sub-bands.@en

Ballistic electron transport is a key requirement for existence of a topological phase transition in proximitized InSb nanowires. However, measurements of quantized conductance as direct evidence of ballistic transport have so far been obscured due to the increased chance of backscattering in one-dimensional nanowires. We show that by improving the nanowire-metal interface as well as the dielectric environment we can consistently achieve conductance quantization at zero magnetic field. Additionally we study the contribution of orbital effects to the sub-band dispersion for different orientation of the magnetic field, observing a near-degeneracy between the second and third sub-bands.@en

Majorana zero modes (MZMs), prime candidates for topological quantum bits, are detected as zero bias conductance peaks (ZBPs) in tunneling spectroscopy measurements. Implementation of a narrow and high tunnel barrier in the next generation of Majorana devices can help to achieve the theoretically predicted quantized height of the ZBP. We propose a material-oriented approach to engineer a sharp and narrow tunnel barrier by synthesizing a thin axial segment of GaxIn1-xSb within an InSb nanowire. By varying the precursor molar fraction and the growth time, we accurately control the composition and the length of the barriers. The height and the width of the GaxIn1-xSb tunnel barrier are extracted from the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) fits to the experimental I-V traces.@en