1. A.

   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.

2. B.

   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.

Original analysis of the contact resistance

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.

Reanalysis of the contact resistance

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:

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.

1. C.

   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.”

1. D.

   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.

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
• Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-024-01602-8