Quantifying wave-function overlaps in inhomogeneous Majorana nanowires

Fernando Peñaranda1, Ramón Aguado2, Pablo San-Jose2, Elsa Prada11Departamento de F́ısica de la Materia Condensada,

Condensed Matter Physics Center (IFIMAC) and Instituto Nicolás Cabrera,Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain

2Materials Science Factory, Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid (ICMM),Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient́ıficas (CSIC),

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 3, 28049 Madrid, Spain(Dated: December 12, 2018)

A key property of Majorana zero modes is their protection against local perturbations. In thestandard picture, this protection is guaranteed by a high degree of spatial nonlocality of the Ma-joranas, namely a suppressed wave-function overlap, in the topological phase. However, a carefulcharacterisation of resilience to local noise goes beyond mere spatial separation, and must also takeinto account the projection of wave-function spin. By considering the susceptibility of a given zeromode to different local perturbations, we find the relevant forms of spin-resolved wave-functionoverlaps that measure its resilience. We quantify these overlaps and study their dependence withnanowire parameters in several classes of experimentally relevant configurations. These includenanowires with inhomogeneous depletion and induced pairing, barriers and quantum dots. Smoothinhomogeneities have been shown to produce near-zero modes, so-called pseudo-Majoranas, belowthe critical Zeeman field in the bulk. Surprisingly, their resilience is found to be comparable orbetter than that of topological Majoranas in realistic systems. We further study how accuratelytheir overlaps can be estimated using a purely local measurement on one end of the nanowire, ac-cessible through conventional transport experiments. In uniform nanowires this local estimator isremarkably accurate. In inhomogeneous cases it is less accurate but can still provide reasonableestimates for potential inhomogeneities of the order of the superconducting gap. We further analysethe zero mode wave-function structure, spin texture and spectral features associated with each typeof inhomogeneity. All our results highlight the strong connection between internal wave-functiondegrees of freedom, nonlocality and protection in smoothly inhomogeneous nanowires.

I. INTRODUCTION

A unique electronic state by the name of Majoranazero mode (MZM)[1] associated with topological super-conductivity has been the subject of intense researchrecently. The pace picked up after the first experi-mental hints of its existence were reported six yearsago [2] in so-called Majorana nanowires, i.e. semicon-ducting nanowires with induced superconductivity andspin-orbit coupling subjected to a Zeeman field abovea critical value B > Bc. These pioneering experimentswere quickly followed by others [3–9], mostly revolvingaround robust zero energy midgap states in tunnelingspectroscopy. From a technological perspective, MZMsare viewed by many as a possible foundation of a newform of quantum computer platform that could achievetopologically protection against some forms of logic er-rors [1, 10–12] using a variety of architectures [13–16].

A MZM is defined as a self-conjugate zero energy eigen-state inside a superconducting gap and it is localised inspace to some degree [1, 17, 18]. The most common placeto find a MZM is at boundaries between regions of dis-tinct electronic topology [19–21]. From the point of viewof fundamental physics, standard theory predicts that aMZM should exhibit some truly exotic properties. Itssecond-quantised operator γ satisfies the Majorana rela-tion γ† = γ, i.e. a MZM quasiparticle is its own “an-tiparticle”. A MZM behaves in many respects as half anelectron, with each MZM emerging simultaneously with

a second Majorana partner located at some other po-sition in the system. Two such “electron-halves” forma rather unusual, spatially nonlocal fermion [1, 22–24].The nonlocal nature of this fermion pins it to zero en-ergy regardless of any local perturbations performed oneither of the MZMs. This is often called topological pro-tection [1, 11], although protection through nonlocality isperhaps a better description, as will be argued here. EachMZM also exhibits non-Abelian braiding statistics uponexchange [10], and obey the same fusion rules as frac-tionalised non-Abelian Ising anyons [25–27]. All theseproperties are expected to be remarkably robust, and tonot require any fine tuning of the system’s state. The rea-son is that, at least within standard theory, they are aconsequence of the different band topology at either sideof the boundary they inhabit, which does not depend onmicroscopic details.

Strictly speaking, however, the topological protectionof MZMs is only exact for boundaries between semi-infinite systems, and becomes approximate for finite-sized systems where the overlap between Majorana wave-functions is finite. Topological band theory also failsto account for the properties and potential protectionof so-called trivial Andreev zero modes, also known aspseudo-MZMs or quasi-MZMs, predicted to appear insmoothly inhomogeneous nanowires without any obviousform of band-topological order [28–35]. An example ofsuch states relevant to the present work arises in fullytrivial nanowires (B < Bc) hosting a sufficiently smooth

arX

iv:1

807.

1192

4v3

[co

nd-m

at.m

es-h

all]

11

Dec

201

8

2

∆

0 L

Uniform

∆(x)

LocalProbe Majorana Nanowire

ηB

ΩN or S'

∆

S'

S0 LS' L + S' LS

N or S' S0

-µ

S'S

0

S

N∆

∆

LN L + N LS

NS

S0

0N

Barrier-SS

N∆

∆

LN L + N LS

Dot-S

S

0

0

N

S

N∆

∆

LN L + N LSS

0

0

N

(1)

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ(x)ϕ

(x)ϕ

(x)ϕ

(x)ϕ

(x)ϕζ

(3)

(5)(4)

(2)∆(x)

∆(x)

∆(x)

∆(x)

x

S

S

FIG. 1. Inhomogeneous nanowires. Sketch of an inhomo-geneous nanowire, hosting Majorana zero modes of overlapΩs. The overlap may be estimated by a local quantity ηmeasured by a local probe. Five types of inhomogeneous pro-files of the electrostatic potential φ(x) and pairing ∆(x) areconsidered: uniform, S’S (superconductor-superconductor),NS (normal-superconductor), Barrier-S and Dot-S. The lattertwo are subtypes of the general NS case.

normal-superconductor interface, wherein modes of arbi-trarily small energy localise.

All the experimental evidence so far of conventionaltopological MZMs can be mimicked by pseudo-MZMs.This realisation has given rise to an intense debate re-garding possible loopholes in the interpretation of theexperimental observations, and on the protection, or lackthereof, of the observed zero modes. Intriguingly, thesestates share most properties with MZMs at the end ofa uniform B > Bc topological nanowire, except in onecrucial aspect: their wavefunctions are not concentratedat opposite ends of the nanowire, so their overlap is notcontrolled by extrinsic device parameters like nanowirelength L. Since spatial nonlocality is necessary to achieveresilience of MZMs against generic error-inducing, parity-conserving local perturbations, it is often argued thatpseudo-MZMs, unlike MZMs, would not be useful fortopological quantum computation.

We here reassess this assumption by comparing theoverlaps of topological-MZMs and pseudo-MZMs in real-istic finite nanowires. In such systems topological MZMscan exhibit sizable overlaps, not necessarily smaller thanthose of pseudo-MZMs. Despite the fact that topological-MZM overlaps are ideally an exponentially decreasingfunction of length L, Ω ∼ e−L/ξ, the coherence length ξis not necessarily small, and actually tends to grow withmagnetic field. This leads to an expected increase of over-laps as one enters deep into the topological phase [29, 36–38]. In contrast, we find that pseudo-MZM from suf-ficiently smooth potentials can develop wavefunctionswith small overlaps very quickly (they have a different–Gaussian– profile than topological MZMs). Thus, thereis no fundamental reason that dictates which of the two

types of MZMs, topological or non-topological, is likelyto be better protected against local perturbations in re-alistic, micron-length nanowire devices.

Motivated by this, we here characterise MZMs purelyin terms of their wave-function overlaps instead of clas-sifying states into trivial and non-trivial based on bulktopological invariants. Specifically, we will focus on dif-ferent measures of Majorana wave-function nonlocality,which quantify the susceptibility to arbitrary local per-turbations that preserve fermion parity. Formally, the as-sociated susceptibilities will be expressed as different spa-tial overlap integrals Ω of the Majorana Nambu-spinorialwavefunctions, depending on the type of perturbation.Despite all of these integrals expressing nonlocality, theway the internal spin degrees of freedom combine in theoverlap integral is different. This leads to several defini-tions of the degree of nonlocality 0 ≤ 1 − Ω ≤ 1 thatgo beyond purely spatial separation, and that are di-rectly connected to protection of MZMs against different,parity-preserving, local perturbations [1, 11]. The quan-tity 1− Ω thus takes the meaning of a figure-of-merit ofa pair of zero modes, irrespective of their topological ori-gin, which is applicable in isolated systems of arbitrarylength, where the distinction between pseudo-MZMs and‘proper’ topological MZMs is ill-defined.

As an aside, we note that an alternative theoreti-cal framework has been recently proposed that allowsto recover a well-defined and unambiguous trivial/non-trivial classification within this continuum of MZMs ofisolated systems. It defines the topological nature ofthese zero modes in more general terms by consider-ing the exceptional-point topology of the non-hermitianHamiltonian that describes the system when it is cou-pled to a reservoir [39–41]. In essence, the coupling tothe reservoir makes the system infinite, so that it is oncemore amenable to a rigorous topological classification.This approach is related to band topology, but is moregeneral, and in it the degree of nonlocality of the isolatedstates studied here plays a crucial role.

In this work we further consider the practical problemof quantifying and detecting the degree of nonlocality of agiven zero mode using purely local measurements by localspectroscopic probes. These include e.g. a tunnel contactor a quantum dot coupled to a certain spot in a Majoranananowire [42–47], a setup routinely used today in the labto perform tunnelling spectroscopy [6, 7, 48, 49], see Fig.1. This challenge seems a priori hopeless since quantify-ing nonlocality involves knowing the distribution of thezero mode throughout an extended region in space, notjust at one spot. Thus, it seems necessary to resort tocomplex nonlocal cross-correlation or interferometry de-tection schemes [31, 50–55]. We show, however, that thespatial distribution of subgap states is not completely ar-bitrary in realistic systems, but spans a finite volume inthe space of all possible wavefunctions. Due to this con-straint, local measurements at one end of the nanowireremain highly correlated with the actual Majorana wave-function overlap throughout the system.

3

This work is organised as follows. Section IIpresents the basic concepts and definitions of overlapsand local estimators, and the five types of nanowireconfigurations to be studied, see Fig. 1. Sec-tion III is devoted to uniform nanowires. The ba-sic Lutchyn-Oreg model is presented, together with itsphenomenology regarding spectrum, zero-mode overlapsand their correlation with local estimators. SectionsIV and V present the corresponding analysis in inho-mogeneous superconductor-superconductor and normal-superconductor nanowires, respectively. In the lattercase we also analyse specific barrier-superconductor andquantum dot-superconductor configurations, of relevanceto many experimental devices. We finally present, in Sec.VI, a discussion of the spatial spin density of the Majo-rana wavefunction in the various types of inhomogeneousnanowires as a function of their smoothness. This willallow us to distinguish between two characteristic typesof wavefunctions, that of conventional abrupt Majoranasat sharp insulating interfaces, and that of Gaussian-likesmooth Majoranas that develop at smooth superconduc-tor interfaces. Finally, in Sec. VII we conclude.

II. NONLOCALITY AND LOCAL ESTIMATOR

A. Majorana basis

Consider a generic subgap eigenstate c in a quasi-1Dsuperconductor

c =

∫dx∑σ

uσ(x)ψσ(x) + vσ(x)ψ†σ(x).

Here σ denotes spin projections on a given axis, chosenin this work as the x axis along which a Zeeman field willlater be applied. This fermionic state can be decomposedinto two Majorana components γL and γR

c =γL + iγR√

2,

c† =γL − iγR√

2, (1)

so that

γL,R =

∫dx∑σ

uL,Rσ (x)ψσ(x) +[uL,Rσ (x)

]∗ψ†σ(x).

By definition, γL,R are self-conjugate, γL,R = γ†L,R (Ma-

jorana reality condition). Their wavefunctions uL,Rσ (x)can be expressed in terms of the particle and hole wave-function components uσ(x), vσ(x) of eigenstate c as

uLσ (x) =uσ(x) + v

∗σ(x)√

2,

uRσ (x) =uσ(x)− v∗σ(x)

i√

2. (2)

All wavefunctions uL,Rσ (x), uσ(x), vσ(x) are normalised.In particular ∫

dx‖uL,R(x)‖2 = 1. (3)

where uL,R denotes the spinor of uL,Rσ components, andthe ‖ . . . ‖ denotes its norm.

Note that the Majorana decomposition of Eqs. (1, 2)is possible for any Andreev state with finite energy E0,not only for those with zero energy. Only if the subgapeigenstate c has zero energy, the γL,R will themselves bezero energy eigenstates. This is true regardless of theirspatial nonlocality or their topological/trivial origin. Inthis work we will always call these self-conjugate γL,Rzero modes, Majorana zero modes (MZMs), since theysatisfy the Majorana reality condition. We thus refer toMZMs independently of whether the system has a trivialor non-trivial band topology.

B. Protection and wave-function nonlocality

The standard definition of topological protection [12]relies on Majorana midgap states with a sufficientlylarge gap to higher excitations and an exponentially sup-pressed energy, E0 ∼ e−L/ξ, resulting from spatial sep-aration of Majorana wavefunctions, with L the wire’slength and ξ the Majorana coherence length [56]. Thisallows in practice to achieve a degenerate ground statethat does not split in response to local perturbations.The spatial nonlocality of the Majoranas leads also toan exponentially suppressed sensitivity to arbitrary localperturbations. This is ultimately the reason why nonlo-cality is such a key Majorana property.

As argued in the introduction, this picture has to beextended in more general situations, wherein zero modesarise due to smooth inhomogeneities. In such case, theconnection between protected ground state degeneracyand nonlocality becomes less obvious. One can have zeromodes with overlapping wavefunctions. The question re-mains as to whether the MZMs in smoothly inhomoge-neous nanowires are susceptible to parity-preserving lo-cal perturbations. The specific type of perturbation andthe spinorial internal structure uL,R(x) become crucial inthis regard. They lead to different forms of the suscep-tibility, expressed as overlap spatial integrals that givea sense of nonlocality, but in which internal degrees offreedom combine in different ways. In this subsection weanalyse these different forms.

To make connection with published literature, we startby considering the response to global perturbations tothe chemical potential µ in the nanowire. In Ref. [56]it was shown that the zero-temperature change in theenergy E0 of a subgap Andreev state c in response tosuch change is the state’s dimensionless charge ∂E0/∂µ =δN = |Q|/e = 〈c†c − cc†〉, which in the Majorana basis

4

takes the form of a wave-function overlap

δN =

∣∣∣∣∫ dxuL(x) · uR(x)∣∣∣∣ . (4)Here | . . . | denotes the absolute value. It becomes clearthat for well separated, exponentially decaying Majoranawavefunction uL,R(x) at a distance L, as corresponds tothe MZMs of uniform topological nanowires, this suscep-tibility δN is exponentially suppressed, δN ∼ e−L/ξ, justlike E0.

We next consider the susceptibility of the Majoranas toa local, spatially uncorrelated noise source that preservesfermion parity

WP (t) =

∫dxWP (x, t)

=

∫dx∑σσ′

ψ†σ(x)Pσσ′ψσ′(x)V (x, t), (5)

where P is a certain operator on spin space and V (x, t) aspatially uncorrelated random energy fluctuation, with apower spectral density V (x, t)V (x′, t′) = δ(x−x′)S(t−t′).Examples of such perturbations include short-range fluc-tuations of the electrostatic potential (with P = P0 =δσσ′), a Zeeman-like perturbation due to exchange withan ensemble of local magnetic impurities ~m(x) polarisedalong the Zeeman field (with P = P3 = σz, the zPauli matrix), or completely spin-uncorrelated local noise(with P = P± = [P0 ± P3]/2), acting independently onopposite spins σ = ±1. More general models not consid-ered here, such as multimode nanowires, can be consid-ered within this same formalism by including any addi-tional quantum numbers (e.g. transverse modes) intoσ, and defining the corresponding P matrices for rel-evant (possibly mode-mixing) perturbations. We notethat without mode-mixing noise, the results obtained inthis work would apply directly to multimode nanowirestoo.

A given perturbation WP produces dephasing withinthe zero-energy Majorana subspace, with the dephasingrate proportional to the susceptibility of E0 to WP atvanishing frequency, 1/T ∗2 ∝

∫dx |∂E0/∂WP (x, ω = 0)|.

This relation follows from e.g. the analysis in Ref. 57,generalised to include statistically independent localnoise sources (note the absolute value inside the spatialintegral, as expected for the addition of independent de-phasing channels). Using first-order perturbation theory,∂E0/∂WP (x, ω = 0) ∝

∑σσ′ u

Lσ (x)Pσσ′u

Rσ′(x) ≡ χP (x).

The susceptibility χP (x) thus connects dephasing to var-ious forms of spatial overlaps, 1/T ∗2 ∝ Ωk, where Ωk =∫dx |χPk(x)| is in fact an integrated susceptibility.For completely arbitrary, local, spin-uncorrelated noise

WP± one obtains an integrated susceptibility Ωs of theform

Ωs = Ω+ + Ω− =

∫dx∑σ

∣∣uLσ (x)uRσ (x)∣∣ . (6)

Despite the superficial similarity to δN in Eq. (4), thespin degree of freedom enters differently in this case.We note that this expression is not SU(2) symmetric,as assuming uncorrelated spin fluctuations requires oneto define a preferred spin quantization axis. It is therelevant susceptibility when the SU(2) symmetry of thesystem is broken by e.g. a finite spin-orbit couplingand/or an external Zeeman field, as happens in a Ma-jorana nanowire, and one does not know anything aboutthe noise produced by the environment. It is thereforethe ‘pessimistic’ form of the susceptibility, which againtakes the form of a measure of nonlocality. This measureis stricter than δN , since Ωs ≥ δN .

If we consider only spin-independent local noise (P =P0), i.e. short-range electrostatic potential fluctuations,we have the following Ω0 susceptibility instead,

Ω0 =

∫dx∣∣uL(x) · uR(x)∣∣ . (7)

Since this noise is more restricted, it is natural that Ω0 ≤Ωs. It is thus a less strict measure of nonlocality thanΩs. It is moreover SU(2) symmetric.

Finally, we can define a degree of nonlocality that ispurely spatial, and independent of the spin degree of free-dom, defined as 1− Ωmax, with

Ωmax ≡∫dx‖uL(x)‖ ‖uR(x)‖. (8)

This Majorana overlap does not seem to be directly re-lated with a linear-response susceptibility to any type ofnoise, but has the interesting property of being a strictupper bound to all other definitions. Taking into accountEq. (3), we have

0 ≤ δN ≤ Ω0 ≤ Ωs ≤ Ωmax ≤ 1.

Remarkably, we will show that all these measures of non-locality become essentially equal for zero modes in glob-ally topological nanowires B > Bc, but not so for zeromodes below the Bc in inhomogeneous nanowires. Thisreflects the intricate relation between spin, nonlocalityand protection derived from spin-orbit-induced spin tex-tures.

Throughout this work we will deal in particular withthe problem of estimating the most pessimistic suscep-tibility Ωs with a local probe. This was the subjectof theoretical and experimental studies in quantum dot-nanowire setups, see Refs. [46, 49]. In this context, Ωs isthe pertinent measure of nonlocality, and given its mean-ing as a susceptibility to unrestricted local perturbations,it is also the most conservative measure of Majorana zeromode protection, beyond topological considerations.

A trivial example of a MZM is a highly local Yu-Shiba-Rusinov state [6, 58–60] tuned to zero energy. In general,such a fully local Andreev state will have equal Majo-rana components |uLσ (x)| = |uRσ (x)|, and hence Ωs = 1.A MZM of topological origin will in contrast have expo-nentially small overlap Ωs ≈ 0, as e.g. the conventional

5

B > Bc topological zero modes in very long Majoranananowires. As will become apparent in the course of thiswork, a continuum of ABSs are possible under brokentime reversal symmetry with any value of Ωs betweenzero and one. The so-called pseudo-MZMs at smoothinterfaces will be shown to lie at any point within thisrange 0 ≤ Ωs ≤ 1 depending on nanowire parameters.

C. Local estimator η

It was proposed [46] to estimate Ωs by relating it to aquantity η that can be extracted by a local measurementperformed at x = 0. This point is chosen here as the leftend of the nanowire, of total length L. Other choices forx can be considered, but in our models at least one of thezero modes will often be concentrated around said end, sothis becomes the optimal choice for our purposes, and theone relevant for most experiments currently. As discussedbelow, the measurement itself can be of different kinds,but it should be designed to probe a local quantity η,intrinsic to the isolated nanowire, defined in terms of theratio of the norms of the two Majorana components atx = 0,

η ≡

√‖uR(x = 0)‖‖uL(x = 0)‖

. (9)

The original observation that this quantity is corre-lated with Majorana nonlocality was made in Ref. [46],where it was shown that in B > Bc uniform nanowires

Ωs ≈ η. (10)

In the rest of this work we will quantitatively evaluatehow well the approximation holds in more general sit-uations, including inhomogeneous samples with smoothinterfaces hosting near-zero modes at B < Bc.

At least two schemes have recently been proposed toaccess the local quantity η. The first [39] consists in mea-suring transport from a normal tunneling probe, coupledto the nanowire through a barrier at x = 0. By analysingthe profile of the zero-bias anomaly associated to the twoMajoranas, one may extract their respective decay ratesΓL and ΓR [61]. These rates can be expressed as effectivecoupling amplitudes tL, tR of the two Majoranas acrossthe barrier, ΓL,R = πρ0|tL,R|2, which can in turn be ex-pressed in terms of overlap integrals of probe and Ma-jorana wavefunctions under the barrier using Bardeen’stunneling theory [62]. For a short and high barrier, theratio of such overlap integrals are given by the intrinsic‖uR(x = 0)‖/‖uL(x = 0)‖ in the decoupled nanowire, sothat η can be approximated by

η ≈(

ΓRΓL

)1/4. (11)

The second scheme [46, 63], recently demonstrated ex-perimentally [49], consists in measuring, using tunnelling

spectroscopy, the splitting of the zero mode as it is tunedto resonance with a quantum dot state coupled in seriesto the end of the nanowire (Fig. 1). This scheme, ap-plied to two subsequent dot-wire resonances, gives accessto the couplings tL and tR of the two Majoranas to thedot, in terms of which η reads

η ≈

√|tR||tL|

. (12)

Again, this approximation to the intrinsic η is valid forshort barriers between dot and nanowire. The dot mea-surement scheme also yields information about the spin-canting angles of the zero modes at x = 0 [46, 64]. Wewill return to the spin of the MZMs in Sec. VI, afteranalysing in detail η as an estimator of Ωs.

We first note that a MZM of topological origin, withΩs ≈ 0, is guaranteed to have η = 0, as Ωs ≈ 0 ⇒uRσ (0) ≈ 0 (though the converse is not true). Likewise, aperfectly local ABS with Ωs = 1 requires u

Lσ (x) = u

Rσ (x)

for all x, so η = 1 in that case. The correlation betweenΩs and η in intermediate situations is not so simple, anddepends on the specific microscopic configuration of theMajorana nanowire.

We will explore three such types of configurations: (1)a uniform Lutchyn-Oreg nanowire, (2) a superconduct-ing nanowire with a smooth step in the electronic density(S’S), and (3) a nanowire with a step both in charge den-sity and induced pairing (NS). Within this latter class wefurther specialise in two specific cases of particular ex-perimental relevance, a superconducting nanowire witha narrow normal barrier (4) or a quantum dot (5) at theleft end of the nanowire (see sketch in Fig. 1). Thesefive setups, each corresponding to a different device de-sign, play an important role in the ongoing discussionaround the interpretation of recent experimental obser-vations and even of theoretical results themselves. Theywill now be discussed in turn.

Before proceeding, it is interesting to make the connec-tion between the local estimator η and the non-Hermitiantopological classification theory mentioned in the intro-duction. Zero modes with intermediate Ωs acquire a dis-tinct topological classification when coupled to a reser-voir at x = 0 [39]. Within this theory, any deviationfrom perfect locality η < 1 translates into a dimension-less asymmetry in the couplings of each Majorana com-ponent to the reservoir, denoted as γ0/Γ0, where γ0 andΓ0 are, respectively, the half-difference and average of theescape rates of the two Majoranas into the reservoir. Theconnection with η is simply η4 = (1−γ0/Γ0)/(1+γ0/Γ0).A finite asymmetry, in turn, stabilises the zero modethrough an exceptional point bifurcation. This happensif the coupling asymmetry exceeds the Majorana split-ting γ0 > |E0|. Hence, a mode with η < 1 exactly atzero energy will be rendered non-trivial when coupled toa reservoir.

6

1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) uniform short

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

S

1

uL,R

TS

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

TS

3

(�)1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) uniform long

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

S

1

uL,R

TS

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

TS

3

(�)

η-Ωs ensemble(�) P(η,Ωs) probability density(�)

FIG. 2. Uniform nanowires. Panels (a) and (b) show the spectrum (top panel), and the Majorana overlaps Ωmax (redshaded region), Ωs (solid red), Ω0 (dotted red), δN (solid green), local estimator η (black) and splitting E0 (blue) of the lowestlying state (bottom panel) as a function of Zeeman B in uniform nanowires with µ = 0.2 meV, ∆ = 0.3meV and α = 0.4eVÅ.The nanowire length is L = 1.2µm (a) and L = 3µm (b). The Majorana wavefunctions along the nanowire are shown to theright, at three values of B (numbered circles), together with a sketch (above) of the corresponding band-topological phase ofthe nanowire. In panel (c) we show the position in the (η,Ωs) plane of the near zero modes with E0 ≤ 10µeV in an ensembleof nanowire configurations uniformly distributed within the following parameter ranges: µ ∈ (0, 2.5) meV, ∆ ∈ [0, 0.5] meV,α ∈ [0.1, 1] eVÅ and L ∈ [0, 2]µm. Panel (d) shows the corresponding probability density P (η,Ωs). The Pearson correlationfactor of the nonlocality estimator is r = 0.98 [slightly less as we filter into bins of increasing Fermi energy, see small red, green,blue subpanels to the right of (c) and (d)].

III. UNIFORM MAJORANA NANOWIRES

The established standard to describe Majoranananowires is the Lutchyn-Oreg model [17, 18]. It consistsin a modification of an original proposal by Fu and Kane[65] to engineer one-dimensional topological supercon-ductivity by proximity to a conventional superconductor.The ingredients of the Lutchyn-Oreg model are a one di-mensional semiconducting nanowire with Fermi energyµ and spin-orbit coupling α, a Zeeman field B appliedparallel to it, and an s-wave superconductor to inducea pairing ∆ on the nanowire by proximity effect. The

Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian of the model reads

H =

(p2x

2m∗− µ

)τz +Bσxτz −

α

~pxσyτz + ∆τx. (13)

Here τi and σi are Pauli matrices in the (c†, c) particle-

hole and (↑, ↓) spin sectors. Only one spinful nanowiresubband is included. We use, for concreteness, the effec-tive mass of InSb, m∗ = 0.015me. The model describes a

trivial superconducting phase for B < Bc ≡√µ2 + ∆2,

while for B > Bc it develops a topological p-wavegap with Majorana zero modes at either end of a longnanowire. For smaller lengths L around one micron, Ma-joranas start to develop a finite overlap Ωs and hibridiseaway from zero energy E0 > 0.

7

This model has been extensively used to characterisethe basic physical regimes of Majorana nanowires. Thecorrelation between Ωs and the estimator η establishedin Ref. 46 referred mainly to this model. Here we useit as a starting point for the more complicated inhomo-geneous nanowire models discussed later. We computedits associated phenomenology using the MathQ package[66]. Figure 2 summarises the results. Panel (a) shows,for a L = 1.2 µm nanowire, the B dependence of the Bo-goliubov spectrum, the typical wavefunctions, their hy-bridisation energy E0, their overlaps δN , Ω0, Ωs andΩmax, and the overlap estimator η. Panel (b) shows theequivalent results for a longer L = 3 µm nanowire.

The spectra in panels (a,b) illustrate the well-knownband inversion at a finite Bc ≈ 0.36 meV (dotted verticalline), after which a zero mode emerges that oscillates as afunction of B due to the small, but finite, spatial overlapof its Majorana components. The corresponding Majo-rana wavefunctions ‖uL,R(x)‖ for the lowest eigenstateare depicted for three values of B (numbered circles), onebelow Bc and two above. Atop the wavefunctions we rep-resent the corresponding band-topological phase alongthe nanowire, with trivial in yellow (S) and topologicalin red (TS). Note that for field B1 = 0.25meV < Bc, al-though the topological transition has not yet taken place,the Majorana components of the lowest eigenstate ap-pear as precursors to the Majorana zero modes at thehigher B2 = 1.0meV > Bc and B3 = 2.0meV > Bc.Their overlap ceiling Ωmax (red shaded region) startsfrom Ωmax = 1 (strictly local) at B = 0, and decreasesas B increases. We see that the wave-function overlapbetween MZMs is a continuous non-monotonic quantityas a function of Zeeman field (this will also be the case ininhomogeneous nanowires). Thus, it is incorrect to thinkabout fully local/nonlocal MZMs, before/after a topo-logical transition. Interestingly, in uniform nanowiresthe spin-independent forms of the overlaps coincide forB < Bc, δN ≈ Ω0, while the overlap corresponding tospin-uncorrelated noise essentially follows the fully spa-tial overlap, Ωs ∼ Ωmax. All forms of the overlap reach acommon minimum just beyond the critical field B & Bc,and then grow together in an oscillatory fashion [29, 36–38], out of phase with the splitting (blue curve). Namely,MZMs deep in the topological regime exhibit less nonlo-cality than the ones near Bc (compare wavefunctions atB2 and B3).

In the two uniform nanowires simulated in panels (a,b)we see how the estimator η (black curve) roughly tracesthe overlap Ωs, particularly around the B & Bc regionof minimal overlap. This good correlation correspondsto two particular configurations of the uniform Lutchyn-Oreg model. To fully assess the overall correlation be-tween η and Ωs for arbitrary configurations, we simu-late an ensemble of ∼ 5 · 105 uniform nanowires withvarying model parameters, including B, α, L, µ and∆, distributed uniformly within realistic ranges (see cap-tion). Amongst all configurations, we select those witha near zero mode (splitting E0 < 10µeV) well separated

from higher excitations (second eigenvalue greater than50µeV). This preselection is experimentally feasible attemperatures below ∼ 100mK using local tunnel spec-troscopy. In the uniform case it excludes in particularany field in the trivial regime B < Bc. We then computethe (η,Ωs) pair for the near-zero modes in the ensembleand collect all these points (see Fig. 2c) to build theprobability density P (η,Ωs) that a given zero mode witha measured η have a given Ωs. The probability P (η,Ωs)is shown in Fig. 2d. Its profile gives an accurate ac-count of the quality of η as an estimator of Ωs withinthe whole space of uniform Lutchyn-Oreg nanowire mod-els with near zero modes. A perfect correlation wouldappear as a straight, thin P (η,Ωs) along the diagonal.We see that while the actual dependence of the typicalΩs with η is non-linear, the probability distribution israther narrow and close to the diagonal, which revealsthe high quality of the estimator within this model space.The Pearson correlation coefficient between η and Ωs isr = 0.98. The small panels in red, green and blue dis-sect the ensemble according to their µ (see legend, lowdensities in red, higher densities in blue). The depictedpartial P (η,Ωs) show that the precision of η is greaterif the nanowire is known to have low electronic density.This will be a recurring fact throughout this study. Per-forming the same statistical analysis with Ω0 instead ofΩs yields very similar results.

IV. SMOOTH S’S NANOWIRES

In the remaining sections we consider inhomogeneousnanowires, described by a generalised Lutchyn-Oregmodel with position dependent pairing ∆(x) and elec-trostatic potential φ(x),

H =

(p2x

2m∗− µ+ φ(x)

)τz+Bσxτz−

α

~pxσyτz+∆(x)τx.

(14)(In what follows we reabsorb µ into φ(x) for simplicity.)

Much of the current debate as to the potential non-triviality of transport signatures in Majorana nanowiresrevolves around the possibility that near zero modesmay arise as the result of smooth spatial variations in∆(x) and/or φ(x) in inhomogeneous nanowires, inde-pendently of a band-topological phase transition. Thedebate has thus centered mostly on distinguishing be-tween topological MZMs and such pseudo-MZMs in thissystem, with the implicit assumption that these statesare fundamentally different in some sense. In our view,as summarised in the introduction, the only meaning-ful distinction between zero modes has to be based ontheir respective wave-function structure, which under-lies in particular the defining property of MZMs, namelytheir resilience against parity-preserving perturbations.(see Sec. II). Regardless of their connection to band-topology, smoothly-confined pseudo-MZMs with a suffi-ciently small overlap Ω will therefore be, for all purposes,

8

1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) S'S weak inhomogeneity

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

S' S

1

uL,R

TS' S

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

TS' TS

3

(�)1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) S'S strong inhomogeneity

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

S' S

1

uL,R

TS' S

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

TS' TS

3

(�)

η-Ωs ensemble(�) P(η,Ωs) probability density(�)

FIG. 3. Smooth S’S nanowires. (a,b) Equivalent of Fig. 2 in a nanowire with two superonducting halves, of lengthsLS′ = 1µm and LS = 2µm, with uniform pairing ∆ = 0.5 meV but different φS′ = −0.2meV and φS = −0.7meV (a) orφS = −2.0meV (b) at either side. In terms of Fermi energy differences ∆µ = maxx[φ(x)] − minx[φ(x)], this corresponds to∆µ = 0.5 meV (a) and ∆µ = 1.8 meV (b). The interface has smoothness length ζ = 0.5µm. The rest of parameters as in Fig.2. Panels (c,d) are computed by independently sampling all parameters, B ∈ [0, 2.7] meV, ∆ ∈ [0, 0.5] meV, φS′,S ∈ [−2.5, 2.5]meV, LS′,S ∈ [0.2, 1]µm, ζ ∈ [0, 0.5]µm and α ∈ [0.1, 0.7] eVÅ. The binning windows are defined in terms of ∆µ.

genuine MZMs protected against the corresponding typeof local perturbation, exactly like the topological B > BcMZMs in finite-length nanowires. The debate is thus re-duced to clarifying if smoothly confined near-zero modescan have significantly suppressed overlaps.

Two relevant types of smooth variations are possiblewithin the Lutchyn-Oreg model, smooth S’S and smoothNS boundaries. In this section we concentrate on theS’S case, wherein ∆ is uniform along the nanowire butφ(x) is position dependent. It can be positive (insulatingregions) or negative (higher density regions). The spatialvariation may arise due to e.g. non-uniform screeningfrom contacts or gates. We model φ(x) in a nanowirespanning 0 < x < LS′ + LS as

φ(x) = φS′ + (φS − φS′)θζ(x− LS′) (15)

where θζ(x) =12 [1+tanh(x/ζ)] is a smooth step function

of width ζ, see Fig. 1. This length controls the smooth-

ness of the boundary between the left S′ side, of lengthLS′ and the right S side, of length LS .

Similarly to the uniform nanowire, a non-uniform S’Ssystem with sufficiently long LS,S′ may still be analysedfrom the conventional point of view of band topologyof the two sides. The two φS′ and φS now define two

critical fields BS′,S

c =√

∆2 + φ2S′,S . For a given B, we

can have all possible combinations S’S, TS’S, S’TS, andTS’TS, where S stands for a trivial superconductor, andTS a topological superconductor, depending on whetherB < BS

′,Sc or B > B

S′,Sc . Whenever the topology of

the left and right sides is different (locally topologicalnanowire) and the corresponding halves are long enough,a pseudo-MZM will be localised somewhere in the smoothjunction, regardless of ζ. This state is actually a conse-quence of the bulk boundary correspondence. There istherefore nothing ‘pseudo’ about it. Crucially, moreover,we will show in the next section that this state is essen-

9

tially identical to the so-called pseudo-MZMs of smoothNS junctions, where band-topological arguments do notapply. We thus argue that it is incorrect to distinguishbetween MZMs and pseudo-MZM in general isolated sys-tems, as the two types of states are ultimately connected.The discussion, once more, should focus instead on theoverlap Ωs, not on artificial distinctions between classesof zero modes.

Figure 3, analogous to Fig. 2, shows the overlaps, ηand spectral phenomenology of a smooth S’S nanowireas depicted in case (2) of Fig. 1. When the junc-tion is sufficiently smooth, the S’S to TS’S transitionat B = BS

′

c manifests as a single subgap state drop-ping into the gap towards zero energy. A lone subgaplevel detaching from the quasicontinuum of levels is arecurrent and distinct feature of smooth configurationsthat replaces the band inversion characteristic of uniformwires. It is clearly visible in the spectrum of panels (a)and (b), blue curve, where parameters are chosen so that

BS′

c < BSc (the two critical fields are shown as dotted

vertical lines). The two panels (a,b) correspond, respec-tively, to S’S nanowires with weaker and stronger inho-mogeneity ∆µ = 0.5 meV and ∆µ = 1.8 meV, where∆µ ≡ maxx(φ(x)) − minx(φ(x)) is the maximum vari-ation of the Fermi energy in the nanowire. We againshow the Majorana component wavefunctions of the low-est eigenstate at three fixed fields (numbered circles). At

B1 = 0.1meV < BS′

c the nanowire is in an S’S configura-tion (trivial-trivial), and the finite energy state droppinginto the gap is merely a precursor of the Majorana zeromodes at larger fields, concentrated on the less dense S′

side. It already exhibits a slightly suppressed overlapΩs < 1, with its two Majorana components starting toseparate [wavefunction (1)]. As the nanowire enters the

TS’S configuration [BS′

c < B2 = 0.6meV < BSc , wave-

function (2)] the MZMs at the smooth junction (blue)moves away from the left Majorana at x = 0 (red). Thedistance between the two is B-dependent, since the TSlength of the nanowire that satisfies B >

√∆2 + φ(x)2

[see colored bar atop wavefunction (2)] grows with B dueto the smooth φ(x) profile. The spatial decoupling sup-presses Ωs (solid red curve in bottom panel)] until B

Sc is

reached, wherein the type of Ωs oscillations we observedin the uniform case appear, and the Majorana wavefunc-tions become conventional, confined to the ends of thenanowire [wavefunction (3)].

Contrary to conventional lore, the Majorana overlapin the globally topological TS’TS phase at B > BS,S

′

c

is not necessarily smaller than in the locally topologi-cal TS’S case with a Majorana within the bulk of thenanowire. For example, δN and Ω0 can be substantiallysuppressed for B < Bc, which suggests a strong resilienceof locally topological Majorana zero modes against elec-trostatic potential fluctuations, see Figs. 3(a,b), bottompanels. Actually, as was noted also for the uniform case,in typical S’S nanowires shorter than around L ∼ 3µmall forms of the Majorana overlap reach their minimumwithin the TS’S regime, BS

′

c < B < BSc , and begin to

increase into the TS’TS phase. The same will be notedin Sec. V for smooth NS nanowires. This behavior is dueto the different (faster) decay profile of uRσ (x) when it liesat the smooth TS’S junction than when it shifts to theabrupt right boundary of the nanowire. It is importantto appreciate the difference between these two types ofMZMs. The MZM at a smooth boundary is also spa-tially smooth, with a Gaussian-like profile [28, 67], whilethe MZM at an abrupt boundary has fast ∼ kF spatialharmonics and a double-exponential decay [68]. We willanalyse in more detail the profiles and spin densities ofthese two types of MZMs in Sec. VI. In our current setup,this results in a smoother B dependence of the overlapwithin the TS’S regime BS

′

c < B < BSc as compared to

the TS’TS regime B > BSc .The faster spatial decay of smooth Majoranas suggests

that the accuracy of the local estimator η should be worsein this case, compared to the case of uniform nanowiresand abrupt MZMs. Indeed, the estimator may becomesuppressed as the smooth Majorana moves away fromx = 0 at a faster rate (Gaussian) than the overlap (expo-nential). We find that in realistic nanowires (see parame-ter ranges in the caption to Fig. 3) the accuracy of η is in-deed reduced, particularly under strong inhomogeneities∆µ � ∆. This is shown in Fig. 3(c,d). Here we haveperformed, once more, a sampling over nanowire param-eters, this time including also φS′ , φS , LS′ , LS and ζ [seeFigs. 3(c,d)]. The resulting P (η,Ωs) is similar to that ofthe uniform case, albeit with a slightly reduced Pearsoncoefficient r = 0.91. This effect is precisely the result ofthe Gaussian profile of smooth MZMs, which translatesinto a slight ‘bulge’ above the origin and another one toits right. In the subpanels to the right we disect P (η,Ωs)into partial probability densities for increasing degree ofFermi energy inhomogeneity ∆µ. We find that for inho-mogeneities ∆µ < 1 meV, the estimator preserves a highr = 0.95 correlation with Ωs (red subpanel), but increas-ing ∆µ (green, blue subpanels) suppresses r, though theeffect is not drastic, with r ≈ 0.9 still. This remains trueregardless of the maximum nanowire density considered.

V. SMOOTH NS NANOWIRES

We now consider the second type of inhomogeneousnanowire, wherein the pairing, like φ(x), is also positiondependent, ∆(x). We again consider a simple profile thatinterpolates between a left side and a right side. The leftside is always normal in this case, with ∆N = 0, so thatthe nanowire contains a smooth NS interface centered atx = LN ,

φ(x) = φN + (φS − φN )θζ(x− LN ),∆(x) = ∆Sθζ(x− LN ). (16)

This model is relevant to many devices explored inrecent experiments. Nanowires are often made supercon-ducting by growing an epitaxial superconductor on theirsurface. Often, the epitaxial coverage of the nanowire is

10

1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) NS weak inhomogeneity

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

N S

1

uL,R

N S

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

N TS

3

(�)1 2 3

-0.4-0.20.0

0.2

0.4

spectrum

(meV) NS strong inhomogeneity

1 2 3

Ωmax Ωs Ω0δN η E0/ΔS

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Zeeman B (meV)

uL,R

N S

1

uL,R

N S

2

0 x/L 1

uL,R

N TS

3

(�)

η-Ωs ensemble(�) P(η,Ωs) probability density(�)

FIG. 4. Smooth NS nanowires. Equivalent to Figs. 2 and 3, with identical model and sampling parameters as in the latter,except for a zero pairing ∆N = 0 on the left side and finite ∆S = 0.5 meV on the right side of the smooth junction. Note thesimilar wavefunctions of the smooth junction Majoranas as compared to the S’S case of Fig. 3.

incomplete, so it is natural to assume a suppressed pair-ing in the exposed portions. Like in the S’S nanowire,a thorough microscopic validation of this model wouldrequire a detailed characterisation of the device in ques-tion.

The fundamental interest of the Lutchyn-Oreg modelwith a smooth NS interface is particularly high due to thefact that, perhaps surprisingly, it can also host near-zeromodes at finite Zeeman field B, much like the smooth S’S,despite not developing a topological gap on the normalside. This is shown in Fig. 4, which is the NS version ofFig. 3. The suppressed pairing gives rise to Andreev lev-els in the normal region. Depending on the normal lengthLN , their level spacing δ� can be much smaller than theinduced gap ∆, which results is many subgap levels (un-like the S’S case, where only a lone level, detached fromthe quasicontinuum appears). A finite B field Zeeman-splits all these subgap levels, that evolve avoiding eachother due to spin-orbit coupling. This is true for all ex-cept the lowest two excitations (blue), which convergeto zero energy with a finite slope at low B-fields [48]

(this is unlike in the S’S case, where the lone detachedlevel starts off flat at B = 0) [69]. Despite the superfi-cial resemblance to Zeeman-induced parity crossings inquantum dots [6, 69] (see Fig. 6), near-perfect Andreevreflection of N electrons on the smooth NS interface sta-bilises this low-lying subgap level near zero energy forB > δ�, but still well before BSc .

From the point of view of its Majorana components,this near-zero mode is remarkably similar to the corre-sponding zero mode at the TS’S junction. Comparing thewavefunctions at field B2 and B3 in Figs. 3 and 4, we seethat the essential difference between the S’S and NS caseslies in the abrupt Majorana component uL(x) on the leftside (red wavefunction). In the NS case it is delocalisedthroughout the N region of length LN , while in the TS’Scase it is confined within a coherence length of the x = 0boundary. The smooth Majorana at the junction, how-ever, is very similar and, remarkably, remains confined atthe junction instead of decaying into the N side. We notethat in the NS case this confinement is not the result ofa bulk-boundary correspondence, as the left side is not

11

1 2 3

-���-������

���

�����������

(���) Barrier-S

1 2 3

Ω��� Ω� Ω�δ� η ��/Δ�

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������

���

���

���

���

���

������ � (���)

����

B S1

����

B S2

� �/� �

����

B TS3

FIG. 5. Barrier-Superconductor nanowires. SpecificBarrier-S configuration of the NS model, similar to the onediscussed in Ref. [35], with positive φN = 2meV and shortLN = ζ = 0.1µm, which forms a smooth, Zeeman-polarisedinsulating barrier around x = 0. Other parameters: φS =−1.8 meV, ∆S = 0.3 meV, LS = 2µm and α = 0.4eVÅ.

1 2 3

-���-������

���

���

��������

(���) Dot-S

1 2 3

Ω��� Ω� Ω�δ� η ��/Δ�

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������

���

���

���

���

���

������ � (���)

����

D S1

����

D TS2

� �/�

����

D TS3

FIG. 6. Dot-Superconductor nanowires. Specific Dot-S configuration of the NS model, relevant to a number ofexperiments [7, 49], with negative φN = −14meV and shortLN = 0.15µm, which confines states in a quantum-dot regionaround x = 0. Other parameters: φS = −0.8 meV, ∆S = 0.5meV, ζ = 0, LS = 2µm and α = 0.2eVÅ.

gapped in the continuum limit, but of the high smooth-ness ζ of the boundary which enhances Andreev reflec-tion. This observation hints at a deeper reason for thezero energy of smoothly confined states beyond topology,connected instead to the exact charge-conjugate symme-try of quasiparticles that undergo perfect Andreev reflec-tion at an adiabatically smooth S boundary.

The similar wave-function phenomenology produces asimilar behaviour also for Ωs and E0 as a function ofB. Three regimes are visible, with crossovers at ZeemanB ≈ δ� and B ≈ BSc =

√∆2S + φ

2S , see Fig. 4(a,b).

In the regime δ� < B < BSc with smooth Majoranas,we see that η underestimates the overlap Ωs. The gen-eral (η,Ωs) correlation analysis is shown in Fig. 4(c,d).The overall correlation, with identical sampling and zero-mode preselection scheme as in the S’S, is now r = 0.93.This reduced value respect to the uniform case is oncemore due to the effect of the smooth MZMs. Due totheir faster decay, their overlap with the delocalised NMajorana components is greater than what η would es-timate. This produces the ’bulge’ at (η,Ωs) ≈ (0.2, 0.4)in the probability distribution, which is now more pro-nounced as compared to the S’S case. The states in thisregion of underestimated overlap, however, come fromhighly inhomogeneous samples, as can be seen from thesmall subpanel decomposition. If the nanowire Fermienergy inhomogeneity ∆µ is known to be low enough(∆µ < 1meV ≈ 3∆S , red subpanel), the correlation re-mains strong at r = 0.96.

A. Smooth Barrier-S and Dot-S nanowires

A particular case of the NS nanowires in the precedingsection that is of relevance to many devices is the limitin which LN is small. Nanowires designed to be probedby tunneling spectroscopy are often left uncovered by thesuperconductor at x = 0 in order to allow efficient gatingof the contact to the metallic reservoir. A finger gate un-der x = 0 can then, thanks to the reduced screening bythe superconductor shell, tune the transparency of thecontact by inducing a positive φN . This defines a barrierof finite smoothness ζ, see case (4) in Fig. 1. Such a setupwas recently discussed in Ref. 35, where the smoothnessallowed for the development of a stable B < Bc near-zeromode, with a different coupling of its Majorana compo-nents across the Zeeman-polarised barrier by virtue oftheir opposite spin orientation at the smooth contact.The phenomenology of a such a Barrier-S configurationis shown in Fig. 5. We see that the near-zero modes atthe barrier for B < Bc are characterised by a high overlapΩs but a reduced charge eδN due to Andreev processes.

An opposite voltage of the finger gate can make φNstrongly negative. This may trap discrete states aroundx = 0 in an effective quantum dot-superconductor config-uration. Additionally, screening effects in the nanowiremay produce, in a mean-field approximation, a quantumdot-superconductor profile spontaneously [38, 70] thatcan also trap states. To gain insight into these caseswe simulate nanowires with short, normal dot regionsabruptly connected to the nanowire (ζ = 0) withoutan additional intervening barrier, so the confinement ismerely the result of the potential and pairing mismatchat LN . This is a likely situation in experiments. Its asso-ciated phenomenology is shown in Fig. 6. The trapped

12

FIG. 7. Majorana spin in S’S junctions. (a) Wavefunc-tion |uL| and |uR| of the lowest eigenstate in an TS’S junctionof increasing smoothness ζ = (0.0, 0.1, 1.0)µm. (b) The cor-responding spin density 〈σx〉 along the Zeeman field. Theshading under the spin density curves encodes the Majoranacanting angle θ relative to the Zeeman field along x. Pa-rameters: φS′ = 0, φS = −1 meV, LS′ = LS = 1.8µm,∆S′ = ∆S = 0.4 meV, α = 0.4eVÅ.

states are Zeeman-split as B is increased, and can crosszero energy at specific values of B = B1 < Bc [6, 69],analogous to Shiba state parity crossings. The crossingsare considerably flattened due to the effect of Andreev re-flections from the nanowire, which are enhanced by thelack of a confining dot-nanowire barrier. The near-zeromode is not completely stabilised at zero, unlike in Fig.4, because Andreev reflection is however not perfect (thatrequires a smooth dot-S contact). The state remainsvery concentrated within the quantum dot region, andis therefore considerably local, with Ωs and η both closeto one. Its charge eδN and susceptibility Ω0 to local po-tential fluctuations are comparatively suppressed, againdue to Andreev processes. This once more showcases thefact that seemingly trivial, spatially overlapping near-zero modes are not necessarily fragile, and may exhibit,due to Andreev particle-hole mixing, a highly non-trivialresponse to certain perturbations.[71]

It is important to note that these Barrier-S and Dot-Stypes of configurations of the generic NS model are in-cluded in the NS sampling of Figs. 4(c,d), which thereforeremains representative of the quality of the η estimatorexpected in these cases. We have performed samplings ofpurely Dot-S and Barrier-S configuration ensembles, andfound similar P (η,Ωs) distributions as for the NS case,including the (η,Ωs) ≈ (0.2, 0.4) bulge. The general con-clusions on the NS model class can thus be applied alsoto Barrier-S and Dot-S models.

FIG. 8. Majorana spin in NS junctions. Same as Fig.7for an NS nanowire (∆N = 0).

FIG. 9. Majorana spin in Barrier-S junctions. Same asFig.7 for an Barrier-S nanowire (∆N = 0, φN = 1 meV).

VI. SPIN TEXTURE AND SMOOTHNESS

In this final section we analyse the spin structure ofMZMs associated to different types of interfaces as afunction of their smoothness. This aspect of the MZMwavefunction is relevant, since current experiments thatextract η to estimate the Majorana overlap use spin-polarised quantum dots coupled to the nanowire. Thehybridisation of the dot levels and the MZMs at reso-nance depends strongly on the spin orientation of thelatter. Furthermore, MZM spin is important in view ofa recent arguments [35] that relate potential smoothnessand spin polarisation. This work points out that at asmooth barrier, highly local MZMs acquire opposite spinpolarisation, which may result in a highly asymmetriccoupling to a reservoir due to the Zeeman-polarisation ofthe barrier. We show here that such an effect is a partic-ular manifestation of the MZM nonlocality produced by

13

the barrier smoothness.

We once more analyse different nanowire configura-tions separately. Fig. 7 shows, for an S’S nanowire ofincreasing smoothness ζ at BS

′

c < B < BSc , the Majo-

rana wavefunctions of the lowest energy mode (a) andtheir spin polarisation 〈σx〉 along the nanowire (b). Thefirst row shows a completely abrupt TS’S junction. Theleft Majorana uL(x) centered at the abrupt x = 0 bound-ary to vacuum (red curve) exhibits rapid oscillations as-sociated to the Fermi wavevector kF . We call this anabrupt Majorana. Its fast spatial harmonics are the re-sult of perfect kF → −kF normal reflection at the x = 0boundary. Its spin density likewise oscillates spatiallywithin the z − x plane. The angle θ in this plane (withθ = 0 for spin along x) is known as the canting angle,and is color coded in a gray-orange scale. The right Ma-jorana, in blue, lies at the sharp TS’S interface where An-dreev reflection processes are possible. It has a differentprofile from the abrupt Majorana, but still shows con-siderable density and spin oscillations. As the junctionsmoothness ζ increases (second and third row), the leftMajorana remains unchanged, but the right Majoranaat the junction becomes increasingly smooth, loosing thefast spatial harmonics both in uR(x) and 〈σx〉. Thus, aMajorana of Gaussian-like profile emerges, which we callhere smooth Majorana. Its spin becomes well defined,with canting angle converging to θ = 0 (orange) alongthe Zeeman field direction.

The equivalent smoothness phenomenology for the NSnanowire is shown in Fig. 8. In this case, the abrupt Ma-jorana takes the form of a standing wave in the N region,with oscillatory density and spin. Its spin, however, ispredominantly aligned along −x (i.e. θ = π, gray). Thesmooth Majorana, as remarked in Sec. V, bears a strongresemblance to the one in smooth S’S junctions. It doesnot leak into the N side, even for moderate smoothnessζ ∼ 0.1µm, and acquires a well-defined spin polarisationalong x (i.e. θ = 0, orange). Again, the difference in den-sity and spin texture of abrupt and smooth Majoranasin smooth nanowires is stark.

Finally, we present in Fig. 9 the results for a Barrier-Snanowire (insulating left side, φN > 0), with a barrierof increasing smoothness. For a sharp barrier (top row),the two Majoranas are very similar to the abrupt Ma-jorana at x = 0 in the S’S case. The only difference isthat the barrier side has a finite potential, and a slightleakage of the two Majoranas is possible. The leakage,as pointed out in Ref. [35], depends on the spin den-sity of each Majorana, as the barrier height is differentfor the two spin orientations due to the uniform Zeemanfield in the whole system, barrier included. Said spinorientation for the abrupt junction is rapidly varying, ascorresponds to abrupt Majoranas. The difference in leak-age becomes more pronounced as the barrier smoothnessincreases (middle and bottom rows). The spin of the twoMajoranas in this case becomes increasingly well defined,and opposite, so that one Majorana penetrates more andmore into the barrier as it becomes smoother. This leads

to a simultaneous spatial and spin decoupling (suppres-sion of Ωs) of the two Majoranas at smooth barriers. Wethus see that smoothness-induced nonlocality and spin-induced decoupling of Majoranas are one and the same.We conclude that, in the context of nanowires coupled toexternal reservoir [39, 72], a different decay of MZMs intothe outside world can always be traced back to a finitedegree of nonlocality.

VII. CONCLUSION

To summarise, in this work we have studied the prop-erties of inhomogeneous Majorana nanowires. We haveconsidered Majorana zero modes emerging before and af-ter the band-topological transition, and analysed theirwave-function profiles. This allows us to distinguish be-tween two distinct types, the smooth and abrupt Majo-ranas, each with characteristic spin textures. We alsoshowed that the nanowire spectrum is a rich fingerprintof the nanowire inhomogeneities. From the spectrum itis possible to extract information about the type of pair-ing and potential inhomogeneities in the nanowire. Forexample, a Zeeman splitting that starts with zero or fi-nite slope at B = 0 can distinguish between uniform andnon-uniform pairing in the nanowire. Similarly, a loneAndreev level detaching into the gap as a function of Breveals non-uniform and smooth electrostatic potentials.

We have finally studied in depth the protection to localperturbations of Majorana zero modes, and its relationto wave-function overlaps and nonlocality. As a result,we obtain several expressions for the degree of nonlocal-ity, differing in the role of internal degrees of freedomof the spinorial wavefunction. We study their evolutionwith nanowire parameters and Zeeman field. The differ-ent susceptibilities δN , Ω0 and Ωs essentially coincide forglobally topological nanowires, and match the purely spa-tial definition Ωmax, but significantly differ in nanowireswith non-uniform topology. The Ω’s can be minimisedin smooth NS or S’S junctions before even crossing intoa topological superconductor phase. Once established,and regardless of the underlying mechanism, a small Ωprotects states at zero energy, and suppresses their de-coherence due to a noisy environment. Thus, the wave-function overlap emerges as the only relevant figure ofmerit of Majorana zero modes in isolated inhomogeneousnanowires.

Spatial nonlocality is intrinsically difficult to measure.The local-detection scheme proposed in Refs. [46, 63] andanalysed in detail here is much simpler than alternativeschemes based on interferometry [50] or spatially corre-lated measurements [31, 51–55]. Unlike the latter, how-ever, the predictive power of the local detection schemeis merely statistical. In this work we have assessed theaccuracy, in a statistical sense, of local quantity η as anestimator of the spin-uncorrelated susceptibility Ωs, asthe most conservative, physically motivated measure ofMajorana nonlocality. Its accuracy is rather high, partic-

14

ularly in the case of uniform nanowires. The significanceof this for current experiments is large, as it quantifiesthe likelihood that a zero bias anomaly observed in trans-port is connected to a nonlocal Majorana zero mode. Wehave also analysed carefully the extent to which the es-timator η remains valid in the presence of smooth in-homogeneities. We found that for large smooth inho-mogeneities with ∆µ > 1 meV (of the order or greaterthan the superconducting gap) its accuracy is lessened,although only weakly, statistically speaking. Even if ∆µis very large, however, η can still provide an upper boundfor Ωs. A small η . 0.2 is a statistical guarantee thatthe overlap should remain bounded to Ωs . 0.4.

We have finally considered the effect of smoothnessin inhomogeneous nanowires in connection to the wave-function and spin density of Majorana zero modes. Asmooth interface NS or S’S interface creates smooth Ma-joranas with uniform spin. These remain confined atthe interface regardless of whether one of its two sidesis ungapped (NS) or not (S’S). We also note that at asmooth insulating barrier, the uniform spin-polarisationof smooth Majoranas leads to their spatial separation dueto a spin-dependent barrier penetration, and a suppres-

sion of their overlap as the smoothness increases. Like-wise, near-perfect Andreev reflection at smooth S inter-faces leads to near-equal particle and hole amplitudes,suppressed charge and a correspondingly small sensitivityto electrostatic perturbations, despite their apparentlylocal wavefunctions. This highlights the strong connec-tion between internal spin and particle/hole degrees offreedom, nonlocality and protection in smoothly inho-mogeneous nanowires.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge financial support from the Span-ish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness throughGrant Nos. FIS2015-65706-P, FIS2015-64654-P andFIS2016-80434-P (AEI/FEDER, EU), the Ramón y Ca-jal programme, Grant Nos. RYC-2011-09345 and RYC-2013-14645 and the “Maŕıa de Maeztu” Programme forUnits of Excellence in Research and Development (MDM-2014-0377)

[1] A. Y. Kitaev, Phys. Usp. 44, 131 (2001).[2] V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P.

A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science 336,1003 (2012).

[3] M. T. Deng, C. L. Yu, G. Y. Huang, M. Larsson,P. Caroff, and H. Q. Xu, Nano Lett. 12, 6414 (2012).

[4] A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, andH. Shtrikman, Nat. Phys. 8, 887 (2012).

[5] H. O. H. Churchill, V. Fatemi, K. Grove-Rasmussen,M. T. Deng, P. Caroff, H. Q. Xu, and C. M. Marcus,Phys. Rev. B 87, 241401 (2013).

[6] E. J. H. Lee, X. Jiang, M. Houzet, R. Aguado, C. M.Lieber, and S. De Franceschi, Nat Nano 9, 79 (2014).

[7] M. T. Deng, S. Vaitiekenas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon,M. Leijnse, K. Flensberg, J. Nyg̊ard, P. Krogstrup, andC. M. Marcus, Science 354, 1557 (2016).

[8] H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, S. Gazibegovic, D. Xu, J. A. Lo-gan, G. Wang, N. van Loo, J. D. S. Bommer, M. W. A.de Moor, D. Car, R. L. M. Op het Veld, P. J. van Veld-hoven, S. Koelling, M. A. Verheijen, M. Pendharkar, D. J.Pennachio, B. Shojaei, J. S. Lee, C. J. Palmstrøm, E. P.A. M. Bakkers, S. D. Sarma, and L. P. Kouwenhoven,Nature 556, 74 EP (2018).

[9] A. Grivnin, E. Bor, M. Heiblum, Y. Oreg, and H. Shtrik-man, arXiv:1807.06632 (2018).

[10] C. Nayak, S. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, andS. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008).

[11] M. Cheng, R. M. Lutchyn, and S. Das Sarma, Phys.Rev. B 85, 165124 (2012).

[12] S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Npj QuantumInformation 1, 15001 EP (2015).

[13] S. Plugge, A. Rasmussen, R. Egger, and K. Flensberg,New J. Phys. 19, 012001 (2017).

[14] T. Karzig, C. Knapp, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Bonderson,M. B. Hastings, C. Nayak, J. Alicea, K. Flensberg,S. Plugge, Y. Oreg, C. M. Marcus, and M. H. Freed-man, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235305 (2017).

[15] D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham,J. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M.Marcus, K. Flensberg, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. X 6,031016 (2016).

[16] C. Schrade and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 267002(2018).

[17] Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 177002 (2010).

[18] R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev.Lett. 105, 077001 (2010).

[19] X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057(2011).

[20] R. Aguado, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 40, 523 (2017).[21] R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven,

P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Nature Re-views Materials 3, 52 (2018).

[22] R. Jackiw, Physica Scripta 2012, 014005 (2012).[23] L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 056402 (2010).[24] G. W. Semenoff and P. Sodano, cond-mat/0601261

(2016), cond-mat/0601261.[25] A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006).[26] P. Bonderson, Phys. Rev. B 87, 035113 (2013).[27] M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang,

arXiv:1410.4540 (2014).[28] G. Kells, D. Meidan, and P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B

86, 100503 (2012).[29] E. Prada, P. San-Jose, and R. Aguado, Phys. Rev. B 86,

180503(R) (2012).[30] C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B

95, 054502 (2017).

http://stacks.iop.org/1063-7869/44/i=10S/a=S29http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1222360http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1222360http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1021/nl303758whttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2479http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.241401http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2013.267http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3961http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature26142https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.06632http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.165124http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.165124http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2015.1http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2015.1http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1367-2630/aa54e1http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.235305http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031016http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031016http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.267002http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.267002http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.177002http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.177002http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.077001http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.077001http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1057http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1057http://dx.doi.org/10.1393/ncr/i2017-10141-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0003-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0003-1http://stacks.iop.org/1402-4896/2012/i=T146/a=014005http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.056402https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0601261https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0601261http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0601261http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.035113https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.4540http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.100503http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.100503http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.180503http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.180503http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.054502http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.054502

15

[31] C. Moore, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B97, 165302 (2018).

[32] F. Setiawan, C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma,Phys. Rev. B 96, 184520 (2017).

[33] C. Moore, C. Zeng, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Tewari, Phys.Rev. B 98, 155314 (2018).

[34] C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B97, 214502 (2018).

[35] A. Vuik, B. Nijholt, A. R. Akhmerov, and M. Wimmer,arXiv:1806.02801 (2018).

[36] S. Das Sarma, J. D. Sau, and T. D. Stanescu, Phys. Rev.B 86, 220506 (2012).

[37] R. V. Mishmash, D. Aasen, A. P. Higginbotham, andJ. Alicea, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245404 (2016).

[38] F. Domı́nguez, J. Cayao, P. San-Jose, R. Aguado, A. L.Yeyati, and E. Prada, npj Quantum Materials 2, 13(2017).

[39] J. Avila, F. Peñaranda, E. Prada, P. San-Jose, andR. Aguado, arXiv:1807.04677 (2018).

[40] D. Pikulin and Y. Nazarov, JETP Lett. 94, 693 (2012).[41] D. I. Pikulin and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 87, 235421

(2013).[42] K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090503 (2011).[43] M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. B 84, 140501

(2011).[44] M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. B 86, 134528

(2012).[45] K. Gharavi, D. Hoving, and J. Baugh, Phys. Rev. B 94,

155417 (2016).[46] E. Prada, R. Aguado, and P. San-Jose, Phys. Rev. B 96,

085418 (2017).[47] C. Malciu, L. Mazza, and C. Mora, Phys. Rev. B 98,

165426 (2018).[48] S. Vaitiekenas, M.-T. Deng, J. Nyg̊ard, P. Krogstrup,

and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 037703 (2018).[49] M.-T. Deng, S. Vaitiekėnas, E. Prada, P. San-Jose,

J. Nyg̊ard, P. Krogstrup, R. Aguado, and C. M. Marcus,Phys. Rev. B 98, 085125 (2018).

[50] M. Hell, K. Flensberg, and M. Leijnse, Phys. Rev. B 97,161401 (2018).

[51] J. Liu, F.-C. Zhang, and K. T. Law, Phys. Rev. B 88,064509 (2013).

[52] B. Zocher and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 036802(2013).

[53] J. Li, T. Yu, H.-Q. Lin, and J. Q. You, Scientific Reports4 (2014).

[54] A. Haim, E. Berg, F. von Oppen, and Y. Oreg, Phys.Rev. Lett. 114, 166406 (2015).

[55] A. Haim, E. Berg, F. von Oppen, and Y. Oreg, Phys.Rev. B 92, 245112 (2015).

[56] G. Ben-Shach, A. Haim, I. Appelbaum, Y. Oreg, A. Ya-coby, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 91, 045403 (2015).

[57] C. Knapp, T. Karzig, R. M. Lutchyn, and C. Nayak,Phys. Rev. B 97, 125404 (2018).

[58] L. Yu, Acta Physica Sinica 21, 75 (1965).[59] H. Shiba, Progress of Theoretical Physics 40, 435 (1968).[60] A. Rusinov, JETP Lett. 9, 85 (1969).[61] P. A. Ioselevich and M. V. Feigel’man, New J. Phys. 15,

055011 (2013).[62] J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 57 (1961).[63] D. J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201109 (2017).[64] A. Schuray, A. Levy-Yeyati, and P. Recher,

arXiv:1807.05176 (2018).[65] L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096407

(2008).[66] P. San-Jose, “MathQ, a Mathematica simula-

tor for quantum systems,” Project homepage:http://www.icmm.csic.es/sanjose/MathQ/MathQ.html.

[67] C. Fleckenstein, F. Domı́nguez, N. Traverso Ziani, andB. Trauzettel, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155425 (2018).

[68] J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 86, 085408(2012).

[69] M. W. A. de Moor, J. D. S. Bommer, D. Xu, G. W.Winkler, A. E. Antipov, A. Bargerbos, G. Wang, N. vanLoo, R. L. M. O. het Veld, S. Gazibegovic, D. Car, J. A.Logan, M. Pendharkar, J. S. Lee, E. P. A. M. Bakkers,C. J. Palmstrøm, R. M. Lutchyn, L. P. Kouwenhoven,and H. Zhang, New J. Phys. 20, 103049 (2018).

[70] S. D. Escribano, A. L. Yeyati, and E. Prada, BeilsteinJ. Nanotechnol. 9, 2171 (2018).

[71] We note that introducing a barrier between dot andnanowire progressively suppresses these non-trivial An-dreev effects until one reaches, for high barriers, a stan-dard quantum dot behaviour with unitary charge anda conventional unprotected response to electrostatic andZeeman noise.

[72] P. San-Jose, J. Cayao, E. Prada, and R. Aguado, Sci.Rep. 6, 21427 EP (2016).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.165302http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.165302http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.184520http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.155314http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.155314http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.214502http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.214502https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02801http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.220506http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.220506http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.245404http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/s41535-017-0012-0http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/s41535-017-0012-0https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04677http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0021364011210090http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.235421http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.235421http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.090503http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.140501http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.140501http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.134528http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.134528http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.155417http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.155417http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.085418http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.085418http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.165426http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.165426http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.085125http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.161401http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.161401http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.064509http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.064509http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.036802http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.036802http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04930http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04930http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.166406http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.166406http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.245112http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.245112http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.045403http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/15/i=5/a=055011http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/15/i=5/a=055011http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.57http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.201109http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.096407http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.096407http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.155425http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.085408http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.085408http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/20/i=10/a=103049http://dx.doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.9.203http://dx.doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.9.203http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21427http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21427

Quantifying wave-function overlaps in inhomogeneous Majorana nanowiresAbstractI IntroductionII nonlocality and local estimatorA Majorana basisB Protection and wave-function nonlocalityC Local estimator

III Uniform Majorana nanowiresIV Smooth S'S nanowiresV Smooth NS nanowiresA Smooth Barrier-S and Dot-S nanowires

VI Spin texture and smoothnessVII Conclusion Acknowledgments References