arXiv:2104.14459v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 13 Aug 2021 rymksnnAeinayn uha Bspromising prop- MBSs This as such subsequent anyons commuting. non-Abelian with makes necessarily erty within subspace, not state state rotations non- ground such ground a many-body degenerate realizes the MBSs a of two rotation exchanging trivial that means this l fso-called of ple iloe unu xhnesaitc htaeneither mate- are that host bosonic. statistics (2D) nor exchange two-dimensional fermionic quantum a obey in rial MBSs decades two that almost proba- shown ago terms Majo- was Thirdly—and two importantly—it as the most following. use bly to For will the referred we in and often interchangeably (MZMs) gap. also modes energy are zero rana finite MBSs exactly conventional a reason, at other, this by appear from im- excitations separated MBSs spin also are quasiparticle zero Secondly, This and both energy carries zero other. charge. MBS each zero an to and that equal implies are mediately MBS associated own operator an lan- their annihilation second-quantized with and being in creation that, as the guage, sense interpreted the be in antiparticles can MBSs high-energy their cousins, to similarly Firstly, properties: triguing superconduct- as of to class (TSCs). referred special systems a in ing defects point-like at r so-called are aoaabudsae nsmcnutn nanostructures semiconducting in states bound Majorana emdaMjrn emo—hc sisonantiparti- fermion—later own of its type is cle. fermion—which exotic Majorana an a of termed existence the posed INTRODUCTION I. ae rpriscnas ecntutdi condensed in re- constructed with be excitations systems. also emergent matter can that properties out physics, lated high-energy turned of later context it the in forward brought n13,teIainpyiitEtr aoaapro- Majorana Ettore physicist Italian the 1937, In 1 hl h rgnlie faMjrn emo was fermion Majorana a of idea original the While 4–6 pnobtitrcin(O)pae namgei edadproximitized m and paradigmatic field the magnetic review a we in part, placed wave first (SOI) Majorana a interaction the In describ where spin-orbit to models methods. ‘minimal’ proceeding standard simple before on by MBSs lies of focus our properties Kit Here, basic well-known the the reviewing bou of briefly Majorana some by to start We introduction pedagogical nanostructures. a ing give we Tutorial, this In 2021) August 16 Klingelbergst (Dated: Basel, of University Switzerland Physics, of Department ahrn Laubscher Katharina hmevswt oeo h ai ocpsi h field. the in e concepts and basic theorists the second- students—both 2D of graduate in some states with at corner themselves aimed Majorana construc mainly of to is the exploited discussion Tutorial be a to can include leading mechanism also this mechanism we how show Jackiw-Rebbi st and edge the walls proximitized o domain introduce from be We engineered can MBSs functions insulators. discuss wave we th Majorana part, separating explicit second transition the phase how demonstrate topological and the identify We ductor. hs Bsaecaatrzdb eea in- several by characterized are MBSs These aoaabudstates bound Majorana 3 o-bla anyons non-Abelian fpriua neeti hscontext this in interest particular Of 7–13 ahr Bsaea exam- an are MBSs Rather, 1 oooia superconductors topological n eeaKlinovaja Jelena and osl speaking, Loosely . MS)emerging (MBSs) 1 2 unl enpooe oeeg n2 semiconducting 2D in emerge to proposed been quently a eegnee rmacnetoa spin-singlet conventional a from engineered be can h aoie ntetplgclpae[e q 4),MBSs (41)], Eq. ends. wire [see the phase at topological emerge the (red) In nanowire. the locking. ex- material a hibiting with combined when superconductor wave o T)eg rsraestates, surface earli- insula- or topological the edge proximitized Following (TI) has on tor based field explosion. proposals the veritable est reach, a experimental witnessed within well seeming state arn symmetry. pairing taeidcsasprodcigpiigo tegh∆ sub- strength the of proximity, pairing By superconducting a vector. induces SOI strate the to perpendicularly u ob xrml ae rcal,i a ae re- later was it Crucially, rare. an that extremely turn alized be superconductivity to spin-triplet out intrinsic with rials xsaddtrie h pnqatzto xs magnetic A axis. quantization spin the field determines and axis itdt cu nthe in occur to dicted ues hr oia ae ol hnb efre by performed be then anyons. would (‘braiding’) com- exchanging gates quantum logical topological where for puters, blocks building potential sub- vector superconducting a SOI on The placed (green). (blue) strate nanowire A 1. FIG. Bsi odne atrsseswr rtpre- first were systems matter condensed in MBSs as 2 H45 Basel, CH-4056 82, rasse 7 B n nsprodcoswt neoi spin-triplet exotic an with superconductors in and sapidaogthe along applied is 17 helical ihteraiaino Bsnwsuddenly now MBSs of realization the With oeeprmnal eeatplatforms. relevant experimentally more e rva hs rmtetplgclphase topological the from phase trivial e dsae MS)aiigi semiconduct- in arising (MBSs) states nd tso w-iesoa 2)topological (2D) two-dimensional of ates e hi o oe nodrt introduce to order in model toy chain aev effective ad,ie,bnswt spin-momentum with bands i.e., bands, re oooia uecnutr.This superconductors. topological order tie ntelmto togSI na In SOI. strong of limit the in btained dlo ahannwr ihstrong with nanowire Rashba a of odel prmnait—ekn ofamiliarize to xperimentalists—seeking 8–13,16 Bs u oterrcn interest, recent their to Due MBSs. t mrec fbudsae tmass at states bound of emergence yaconventional a by ucin a eotie explicitly obtained be can functions ν pntiltpiigcomponent pairing spin-triplet 5 = notntl,tog,mate- though, Unfortunately, x / xssc hti soriented is it that such axis α rcinlqatmHall quantum fractional 2 14,15 stknt i ln the along lie to taken is 17,18 Bshv subse- have MBSs s wv supercon- -wave sc s in z - 2 quantum wells19–22 and one-dimensional (1D) semicon- ground state degeneracy of the system. After this in- ductor nanowires with strong Rashba spin-orbit interac- troductory part focusing on a toy model, we turn our tion (SOI),23–26 chains of magnetic adatoms deposited attention to more physical systems. First, in Sec. III, on a superconductor,27–32 TI nanowires,33–35 graphene- we discuss the paradigmatic model of a Rashba nanowire based structures such as carbon nanotubes and nanorib- proximitized by a conventional s-wave superconductor in bons,36–42 planar Josephson junctions,43–47 and many the presence of a magnetic field. We identify the topolog- more. ical phase transition separating the trivial phase from the Due to its expected experimental feasibility, the topological phase with a pair of MBSs at the wire ends, Rashba nanowire model23–26 is one of the most well- demonstrating how the exact MBS wave functions can explored proposals among the above. Here, a semicon- be obtained in the limit of strong Rashba SOI. Further- ducting nanowire with strong Rashba SOI is placed in more, we also introduce the concept of synthetic SOI. In a magnetic field and proximitized by a conventional s- Sec. IV, we then turn our attention to proximitized TI wave superconductor, see Fig. 1. The magnetic field, edge states as an alternative platform for MBSs. We 88,89 in combination with the strong SOI, leads to the emer- introduce the Jackiw-Rebbi mechanism leading to gence of a helical regime with two counterpropagating the emergence of bound states at mass domain walls and bulk modes carrying opposite spin projections. Since all show how this mechanism can be exploited to construct of the required ingredients are in principle readily avail- MBSs. For completeness, we comment on a selection of able in the laboratory, this proposal has triggered sig- other (quasi-)1D platforms hosting MBSs in Sec. V. Fi- nificant experimental activity, culminating in a series of nally, due to their recent interest, Sec. VI is dedicated to works measuring zero-bias conductance peaks consistent 2D higher-order topological superconductors hosting so- with the signatures expected from MBSs.48–58 However, called Majorana corner states. We conclude in Sec. VII. it was soon realized that very similar zero-bias peaks can also appear due to alternative, non-topological mecha- nisms in the absence of MBSs.59–76 As such, irrefutable II. PRELIMINARIES experimental proof of the presence of MBSs has not been obtained up to date. In this section, we introduce some basic notions needed In spite of—or maybe exactly because of—these un- to understand the emergence of Majorana zero modes in resolved issues, the field of MBSs is a highly active and condensed matter systems. The simple ideas developed rapidly evolving research area. The goal of this Tuto- here will frequently reappear throughout the entire Tu- rial is to familiarize graduate students—both theorists torial. and experimentalists—with some of the most well-known Let us start by recalling that, within the formalism proposed realizations of MBSs in semiconducting nanos- of second quantization, a single species of electrons is de- tructures. We assume the reader to be familiar with el- scribed by creation and annihilation operators c†, c satis- ementary quantum mechanics and the formalism of sec- fying the canonical anticommutation relations c†,c† = ond quantization. Furthermore, some basic knowledge c,c = 0, c,c† = 1. If we now want to construct{ } a of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) formalism used to quasiparticle{ } { excitation} that behaves as its own antipar- treat systems with superconducting order at the mean- ticle, γ = γ†, it is clear that it has to take the form field level is highly beneficial. Readers unfamiliar with of an equal-weight linear combination of electronic cre- this concept may for example consult Ref. 77 for a ped- ation and annihilation operators, γ = eiφc + e−iφc† for agogical introduction. Throughout this Tutorial, we try some phase φ. We can thus already guess that the most to expose the relevant physical properties of the consid- natural place to look for MBSs is in superconductors. ered systems using only the simplest mathematical tools. Indeed, the quasiparticle excitations of a superconduc- In particular, we will not introduce the concept of topo- tor (also referred to as Bogoliubov quasiparticles) are logical invariants and the elaborate mathematical frame- linear combinations of electronic creation and annihila- work underlying the general theory of topological phases tion operators.90 However, it is not enough to just take of matter. For this and other relevant aspects that are a plain s-wave superconductor: In such a conventional not covered in this Tutorial, we refer the reader to several superconductor, the Bogoliubov quasiparticles take the 2–5,78–87 † excellent comprehensive reviews of the field. form γ = ucσ + vcσ¯ for some complex coefficients u and The Tutorial is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we v and with spin σ , ,1 and where we have omit- introduce some basic notions related to MBSs that will ted any other degrees∈ {↑ of freedom↓} that might be present. reappear frequently throughout the entire Tutorial. Us- Clearly, such a particle can never be its own antiparti- ing the Kitaev chain toy model,16 we demonstrate how cle due to the mismatching spin indices. Fortunately, isolated MBSs can emerge in a superconducting system and how their pinning to zero energy is guaranteed by particle-hole symmetry. We explain how an MBS can intuitively be pictured as ‘half’ a fermionic zero mode 1 Throughout this Tutorial, we use the shorthand notation ↑¯ =↓, and how two spatially separated MBSs encode a non- ↓¯ =↑. A similar notation will be used for other quantum numbers local fermionic degree of freedom, leading to a two-fold as well. 3

FIG. 2. Pictorial representation of the Kitaev chain model [see Eq. (1)] in two limiting cases. For illustrative purposes, the physical fermion living on site i (light blue box) is split up into two Majorana operators γi1, γi2 (blue dots) according to Eq. (2). (a) ∆ = t = 0. In this case, the chain is in the trivial phase, where Majorana operators belonging to the same site are coupled (red line). (b) ∆ = t> 0 and µ = 0. In this case, the chain is in the topologically non-trivial phase, where Majorana operators belonging to neighboring sites are coupled (red line). This results in two Majorana operators γ11 and γN2 at the ends of the chain not entering the Hamiltonian.

there are ways to circumvent this problem: One can, for and it can be checked that the new operators γi1, γi2 example, consider more exotic types of superconductors satisfy the relations beyond the standard Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) 90 † theory. Indeed, it turns out that spinless p-wave super- γiα,γjβ =2δij δαβ, γiα = γiα. (4) conductors are the simplest platforms capable of hosting { } MBSs. Even though this type of superconductivity is From the second relation, we thus see that the γiα cor- unlikely to occur naturally, we will see later that an ef- respond to Majorana operators in the sense discussed fective spinless p-wave component can also be realized in above. heterostructures combining conventional s-wave super- Rewritten in terms of the Majorana operators, the conductors with suitable other materials, such as, e.g., Hamiltonian given in Eq. (1) takes the form semiconductors with strong SOI. As such, studying of the − simplest spinless p-wave superconductor can give impor- i N 1 tant conceptual insights into the emergence of MBSs. We H = (∆ + t)γ γ + (∆ t)γ γ 2 i2 (i+1)1 − i1 (i+1)2 will therefore devote the remainder of this introductory i=1 X   section to a toy model based on spinless fermions with µ N intrinsic p-wave pairing before moving to more physical (iγ γ + 1). (5) − 2 i1 i2 models in the next sections. i=1 X Explicitly, we consider a 1D chain of spinless fermions described by the Hamiltonian91 While this Hamiltonian is rather complicated in its full form, a lot of insight can be gained by focusing on cer- N−1 N tain limiting cases. For future reference, let us start by H = ( tc†c + ∆c c + H.c.) µ c†c . (1) briefly looking at the trivial case ∆ = t = 0, µ < 0, − i i+1 i i+1 − i i i=1 i=1 where the chain simply consists of uncoupled sites. The X X Hamiltonian then takes the form Here, N is the number of sites, t 0 is the nearest- ≥ neighbor hopping amplitude, ∆ 0 is the superconduct- N µ N ing pairing potential, which we have≥ taken to be real for H = µ c†c = (iγ γ + 1). (6) − i i − 2 i1 i2 simplicity, and µ is the chemical potential. This Hamil- i=1 i=1 X X tonian was popularized by Ref. 16 and is therefore often referred to as the Kitaev chain. Following the original We now see that this corresponds to the case where work, we find it convenient to introduce new operators the two Majorana operators corresponding to a physi- γi1, γi2 for i 1, ..., N defined via cal fermion are paired up, see Fig. 2(a). The system is ∈{ } fully gapped as adding a fermion costs a finite energy µ. 1 1 This phase is called the (topologically) trivial phase− and c = (γ + iγ ), c† = (γ iγ ). (2) i 2 i1 i2 i 2 i1 − i2 does not host any MBSs. A more interesting situation arises for ∆ = t and µ = 0. Loosely speaking, this can be thought of as separating In this case, the Hamiltonian reduces to the electron operator into its real and imaginary parts. The inverse relation of the above transformation reads N−1

† † H = it γi2γ(i+1)1. (7) γi1 = ci + ci, γi2 = i(ci ci), (3) i=1 − X 4

Pictorially, this now corresponds to the case where Majo- rana operators belonging to neighboring sites are paired up, see Fig. 2(b). It is therefore insightful to rewrite the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (7) in terms of new fermionic operators 1 1 d = (γ + iγ ), d† = (γ iγ ), (8) i 2 i2 (i+1)1 i 2 i2 − (i+1)1 leading to

N−1 1 H =2t d†d . (9) i i − 2 i=1 X   FIG. 3. Bulk spectrum of the Kitaev chain, see Eq. (13). In As such, we see that the bulk of the system is still gapped, the absence of superconductivity, i.e., for ∆ = 0, the spectrum is gapless (black dashed lines). Any finite ∆ leads to a fully i.e., adding a fermion of type d costs a finite energy 2t. gapped spectrum (red solid lines) for any µ within the normal- However, the two Majorana operators γ11 at the left end state band. In this example, we have used µ/t = −1 and of the chain and γN2 at the right end of the chain do ∆ = 0 for the black dashed line (∆/t = 0.3 for the red solid not enter the Hamiltonian at all. This implies [H,γ11]= line). [H,γN2] = 0, i.e., the two outermost sites of the chain now host two isolated zero-energy modes satisfying the † † Majorana property γ11 = γ11, γN2 = γN2. These are are separated by closing points of the bulk gap and differ exactly the MBSs we were looking for, and we say that by the values of their topological invariant. In the case of the system is now in the topologically nontrivial phase the Kitaev chain, this invariant takes the values 0 (trivial (topological phase) with one MBS at each end of the phase) or 1 (topological phase) and gives the number of chain. As becomes clear from the pictorial representation MBSs at one end of the chain.2 in Fig. 2(b), we can think of each of the two MBSs as The above statement motivates us to look at the bulk ‘half’ a physical fermion. This also suggests that the two spectrum of the Kitaev chain. Assuming periodic bound- MBSs can be combined to form a single fermionic zero ary conditions for the moment, we can rewrite the Hamil- mode, tonian given in Eq. (1) in momentum space. In order to account for the superconducting term, we resort to the 1 † 1 d0 = (γ11 + iγN2), d = (γ11 iγN2). (10) standard BdG description employing the Nambu spinor 2 0 2 − † † Ck = (ck,c−k). The bulk Hamiltonian then takes the 1 † Since the constituent MBSs are localized far away from form H = 2 k Ck (k)Ck with each other at opposite ends of the chain, this fermionic H P zero mode is highly delocalized. Furthermore, this non- (k) = ( 2t cos k µ) ηz 2∆ sin k ηy. (11) H − − − local fermionic state can be filled or emptied at zero energy cost, leading to the presence of two degenerate Here, ηi for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting in ∈ { } ground states differing in their fermion number. This particle-hole space. It is important to note that, as for two-fold ground state degeneracy, together with the non- any mean-field BdG Hamiltonian in the Nambu repre- Abelian exchange statistics of MBSs, lies at the heart of sentation, the electron and hole components of (k) are 77 H the idea that MBSs can be used for topological quantum not independent. More specifically, (k) satisfies the H computation. While a detailed discussion of how MBSs so-called particle-hole symmetry can be used to perform topologically protected quantum U (k)U −1 = ∗( k) (12) gates is beyond the scope of this Tutorial, we refer the in- CH C −H − terested reader to several excellent reviews covering this 92 topic.2,3,78,79,82,83 with UC = ηx. This symmetry guarantees that the spectrum of (k) is symmetric around zero in the sense While the above discussion focused on two limiting H cases corresponding to the fully dimerized situations that for any eigenstate ϕE (k) at energy +E(k) there is shown in Fig. 2, the qualitative properties of the triv- ial and nontrivial phase persist also if one deviates from these fine-tuned points. Indeed, the number of MBSs at a given end of the chain is directly related to a topologi- 2 More explicitly, when taking particle-hole symmetry as the only cal invariant, meaning that it is robust under continuous symmetry of the model, the Kitaev chain belongs to the class D in the symmetry classification of topological phases of matter,92,93 changes of the system parameters as long as the bulk gap which has a Z2 topological invariant in one dimension. Via the remains open and none of the protecting symmetries are bulk-boundary correspondence, the value of this topological in- broken. More generally, the theory of topological phases variant is directly related to the number of MBSs at a given end of matter states that topologically inequivalent phases of the chain. 5

∗ also an eigenstate UCϕE( k) at energy E( k). Ex- plicitly, we find that the bulk− energy spectrum− − is given by

E2(k)=(2t cos k + µ)2 + 4∆2 sin2 k. (13)

We show an example plot of this energy spectrum in Fig. 3. It can easily be checked that, for any finite ∆, the bulk spectrum is fully gapped except for µ = 2t. ± Thus, these points mark the possible transition between FIG. 4. Bulk spectrum of a bare Rashba nanowire, see topologically distinct phases. Starting from the fully Eq. (17). The spectrum consists of two parabolas—one for dimerized case shown in Fig. 2(b), we can then infer that spin up and one for spin down—shifted by ±kso. At µ = 0, the Kitaev chain remains in the topologically nontriv- the Fermi momenta are given by k = 0 and k = ±2kso. ial phase for any finite ∆ and any chemical potential µ < 2t, i.e., for any µ within the normal-state band. This| | also means that the two MBSs persist for any set of nature. It is therefore natural to ask whether there ex- parameters within this range. However, the MBSs will ist ways to enable topological superconducting phases in generally cease to be perfectly localized to only the out- heterostructures based on conventional s-wave supercon- ermost sites of the chain. Instead, their spatial profile ductors. Fortunately, this is indeed possible when so- will decay exponentially into the bulk. This also means called helical bands—i.e., bands with spin-momentum that in a chain of finite length, the two MBSs at opposite locking—are present. Indeed, when a conventional s- ends of the chain will acquire a finite overlap with each wave pairing term is projected onto a helical band, an other, thereby lifting the exact two-fold ground state de- effective spinless p-wave component emerges.3 generacy discussed above. However, the energy splitting In the remainder of this Tutorial, we will explore some between the two ground states of opposite fermion par- of the most well-known realizations of MBSs based on ity is exponentially suppressed with the system length, conventional s-wave superconductors. Our main focus meaning that our simplified picture introduced above re- lies on proximitized Rashba nanowires in the presence of mains valid in the limit of long chains. a magnetic field (Sec. III) as well as proximitized topolog- An intuitive explanation for the stability of the MBSs ical insulator edge states (Sec. IV). In light of our previ- can be given via a simple symmetry argument. This ous discussion of the Kitaev chain, our main strategy will is easiest to understand when we first consider a semi- be to first identify the topologically inequivalent phases infinite system with a single end. In the topological of the models under consideration by looking for closing phase, a single zero-energy MBS is located at this end points of the bulk gap. Subsequently, we will derive the [see, e.g., Fig. 2(b)]. Furthermore, the particle-hole sym- conditions under which MBSs emerge by explicitly solv- metry discussed above can easily be recast to real space ing for localized zero-energy wave function solutions of and also applies in the case of a finite system. This means the corresponding BdG equations. that the spectrum of the BdG Hamiltonian is symmet- ric around zero energy, or, equivalently, the creation of a Bogoliubov quasiparticle at energy E is equivalent to III. MAJORANA BOUND STATES IN NANOWIRES the annihilation of a quasiparticle (i.e., the creation of a quasihole) at energy E. It is now straightforward to see that a single isolated− MBS at E = 0 cannot be removed In this section, we study the paradigmatic example from zero energy without violating particle-hole symme- of MBSs arising in semiconducting Rashba nanowires in the presence of a magnetic field and proximity-induced try. This argument also remains valid for a long but finite 23–26 chain: Since the overlap between the two MBSs is expo- s-wave superconductivity. Due to its expected ex- nentially suppressed with the system size, it can become perimental feasibility, this setup is often considered one negligibly small for a sufficiently long chain. In this case, of the most promising proposals for the realization of neither of the MBSs can be removed from zero energy by MBSs. Indeed, over the last decade, significant progress has been reported in experiments based on InAs or InSb continuous changes of the system parameters or arbitrary 48–50,54,55 particle-hole symmetric local perturbations as long as the nanowires. In the following, we present the the- bulk gap remains open. The exponential suppression of oretical arguments leading to the emergence of MBSs and the energy splitting between the two degenerate ground demonstrate how the explicit MBS wave functions can states is also referred to as the topological protection of be obtained in the limit of strong SOI. For this, we will the ground state degeneracy. closely follow the methods developed in Ref. 94. Last but not least, let us stress once again that the Kitaev chain should merely be viewed as a toy model. Firstly, electrons in solids naturally come with a spin de- gree of freedom, and secondly, intrinsic spin-triplet su- 3 For an explicit demonstration of how this happens, see for ex- perconductors are very rare to almost non-existent in ample Ref. 78. 6

A. MBSs in Rashba nanowires: Minimal model Finally, if the nanowire is brought in tunnel-contact with a bulk s-wave superconductor, we can account for Our starting point is a 1D Rashba nanowire that is the proximity-induced superconductivity via taken to be oriented along the x axis, see Fig. 1. The bare ∆sc ′ ′ nanowire is described by the Hamiltonian H0 = Hkin + Hsc = dx Ψσ(x)(iσy)σσ Ψσ (x) + H.c., (19) 2 ′ HSOI , where Hkin denotes the kinetic contribution to Xσ,σ Z the Hamiltonian and H denotes the Rashba SOI. The SOI where we take ∆ to be real and non-negative for sim- SOI is characterized by the spin-orbit vector α, which is sc plicity. The total Hamiltonian that we will be concerned oriented perpendicular to the nanowire and defines our with in the remainder of this section is then given by spin quantization axis. For concreteness, we assume that H = H + H + H . α points along the z axis, see again Fig. 1. Explicitly, 0 Z sc Assuming a translationally invariant system for the the kinetic term takes the form moment, we can rewrite H in momentum space. It then ~2∂2 1 † † x takes the form H = 2 k Ψk (k)Ψk, where we have in- Hkin = dx Ψσ(x) µ Ψσ(x), (14) H − 2m − troduced the Nambu spinor Ψ† = (ψ† , ψ† , ψ , ψ ) σ Z   P k k↑ k↓ −k↑ −k↓ X and the Hamiltonian density is given by † where Ψσ(x)[Ψσ(x)] destroys (creates) an electron of spin σ , at position x in the nanowire, m denotes ~2k2 ∈ {↑ ↓} (k)= µ ηz + αkσz + ∆Z ηzσx + ∆scηyσy. the effective electron mass, and µ denotes the chemical H 2m −   potential. The SOI term is given by (20) Here, ηi for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting in † ∈ { } H = iα dx Ψ (x)(σ ) ′ ∂ Ψ ′ (x), (15) particle-hole space. Like any BdG Hamiltonian, this SOI − σ z σσ x σ σ,σ′ Hamiltonian is particle-hole symmetric as expressed by X Z Eq. (12). As discussed in Sec. II, it is exactly this particle- where σ for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting in i ∈ { } hole symmetry that is responsible for pinning any isolated spin space and α > 0 denotes the strength of the SOI. MBS—if present—to exactly zero energy. We will come Note that in this description, the chemical potential is 2 ~2 back to this point when we explicitly solve for MBSs in measured relative to the SOI energy Eso = mα /(2 ). Subsec. IIIB.4 For a translationally invariant nanowire, H0 can be writ- † Via a straightforward eigenvalue calculation, the spec- ten in momentum space as H0 = k Ψk 0(k)Ψk, where trum of (k) is found to be † † † H H we have defined Ψk = (ψk↑, ψk↓) and the Hamiltonian P ~2 2 2 density 0(k) is given by 2 k 2 2 2 2 H E±(k)= µ + α k + ∆Z + ∆sc (22) 2m − ~2k2   (k)= µ + αkσ . (16) 2 H0 2m − z ~2k2 2 µ (∆2 + α2k2) + ∆2 ∆2 . ± 2m − Z Z sc The bulk spectrum of H0 is readily found to be s  ~2k2 By direct inspection, one can show that, for any finite E0,±(k)= µ αk (17) 2m − ± ∆sc, the above spectrum is always fully gapped except for a single gap closing point at k = 0 for5 and corresponds to two parabolas—one for each spin 2 2 2 species—shifted relative to each other, see Fig. 4. In ∆Z = µ + ∆sc. (23) the special case µ = 0, the Fermi points are given by k = 0 and k = 2kso, where the spin-orbit momentum As we will see in the next subsection, this closing and ± 2 kso is given by kso = mα/~ . In general, for a small reopening of the bulk gap corresponds to a topological but possibly finite µ, we will call the branches close to phase transition between a trivial phase and a topologi- k = 0 (k = 2kso) the interior (exterior) branches of the cally nontrivial phase characterized by the emergence of spectrum. ± an MBS at each wire end. Let us now additionally consider the effect of a mag- netic field of strength B oriented perpendicular to the 4 SOI vector. For concreteness, we take the magnetic field Furthermore, if and only if ∆Z = 0, the Hamiltonian also has to be oriented along the x axis in the following, see Fig. 1. time-reversal symmetry expressed by The magnetic field gives rise to the Zeeman term −1 ∗ UT H(k)UT = H (−k) (21) 92,93 with UT = iσy. However, as we will see later, the existence † ′ ′ HZ = ∆Z dx Ψσ(x)(σx)σσ Ψσ (x) (18) of MBSs in this minimal model necessarily requires that time- σ,σ′ Z reversal symmetry is broken. X 5 Recall that we are assuming α> 0 throughout this entire section. with ∆Z = gµBB/2, where g denotes the g-factor of the In the absence of SOI, i.e., for α = 0, the bulk gap can also close nanowire and µB the Bohr magneton. In the following, at points other than k = 0 and the arguments presented in the we will assume ∆ 0. following do no longer hold. Z ≥ 7

FIG. 5. Bulk spectrum of a Rashba nanowire in the presence of a magnetic field and proximity-induced superconductivity, see Eq. (22). For simplicity, we depict the case µ = 0. (a) In the absence of superconductivity, i.e., ∆sc = 0, a Zeeman gap of size 2∆Z is opened around k = 0, while the exterior branches remain gapless. (b) If a small but finite ∆sc > 0 is turned on, the interior gap is modified to 2∆− with ∆− < 0, while a gap of size 2∆sc opens around k = ±2kso. (c) As ∆sc is increased, we eventually reach ∆Z = ∆sc, where the interior gap closes. (d) For ∆sc > ∆Z , the interior gap reopens with ∆− > 0. The closing and reopening of the bulk gap shown in panels (b)-(d) marks the phase transition between the topologically nontrivial phase with ∆− < 0 and the trivial phase with ∆− > 0.

1 † B. Majorana wave functions l i,e we can write Hl = 2 dx Φl (x) l(x)Φl(x) with ∈{† }† † H Φi = (R↑,L↓, R↑,L↓) and R In the following, we focus on the regime of strong SOI with 0 ∆Z , ∆sc Eso. If we furthermore assume (x)= i~v ∂ σ µη + ∆ η σ + ∆ η σ (29) ≤ ≪ Hi − F x z − z Z z x sc y y µ Eso, we can linearize the spectrum around the | | ≪ † Fermi points for µ = 0, which are given by k = 0 and for the interior branches and similarly Φe = † † k = 2kso (see again Fig. 4). The linearized fields take (L↑, R↓,L↑, R↓) and the form±

−2iksox e(x)= i~vF ∂xσz µηz + ∆scηyσy (30) Ψ↑(x)= e L↑(x)+ R↑(x), (24) H − 2iksox Ψ↓(x)= L↓(x)+ e R↓(x), (25) for the exterior branches. Passing to momentum space once again, the bulk energy spectra for the interior and where R (x)[L (x)] is a slowly varying right-moving σ σ exterior branches are readily found to be [left-moving] field and where we have explicitly taken out ±2iksox the rapidly oscillating factors e . In the linearized E2 (k) = (~v k)2 + (∆2 + ∆2 )/2 model, the kinetic term takes the form i,± F + − 2 2 2 2 2 2 [(∆ ∆ )/4] + (~vF k) µ , (31) ~ † † ± + − − Hkin = i vF dx [Rσ(x)∂xRσ(x) Lσ(x)∂xLσ(x)], − − E2 (k) = (~vqk µ)2 + ∆2 , (32) σ Z e,± F ± sc X (26) where the Fermi velocity is given by vF = α/~ and where where the momentum k is now taken from the Fermi 2 2 we have dropped all rapidly oscillating terms.6 Similarly, points and where we have defined ∆± = µ + ∆ sc ± the Zeeman term now reads ∆Z . Consistent with Eq. (23), we find from Eq. (31) that the gap for the interior branches closesp at k = 0 † HZ = ∆Z dx R↑(x)L↓(x) + H.c., (27) when ∆− = 0, while the exterior branches are always Z fully gapped for any finite ∆sc. while the superconducting term takes the form Figure 5 illustrates this gap closing and reopening in more detail, where we chose to depict the case µ = 0 for Hsc = ∆sc dx [R↑(x)L↓(x)+ L↑(x)R↓(x)] + H.c. (28) simplicity. In this case, we obtain the particularly simple Z expressions ∆± = ∆sc ∆Z . Let us first consider the case ± As an additional simplification, we note that the inte- ∆sc = 0, see Fig. 5(a). In this case, a gap of size 2∆Z rior and exterior branches are only coupled among them- is opened for the interior branches, while the exterior selves. This allows us to separate the total Hamilto- branches stay gapless. We are thus in a so-called helical nian into two decoupled subsystems Hi and He. For regime where there is only one gapless right-moving bulk mode with spin down and one left-moving bulk mode with spin up.95,96 If one now turns on a small but finite 6 This is justified if the period of oscillation ∝ π/(2kso) is much ∆sc > 0, the interior gap is modified to 2∆− with ∆− < smaller than all other relevant length scales in the problem, since 0, while the exterior branches open a gap of size 2∆sc, the corresponding contributions average out in the spatial inte- see Fig. 5(b). As ∆sc is increased, we eventually reach gral. ∆Z = ∆sc, where the interior gap closes, see Fig. 5(c). 8

Finally, for ∆ > ∆ , the interior gap reopens with where we have defined p = sgn(∆ ∆ ). In second- sc Z sc − Z ∆− > 0, see Fig. 5(d). quantized form, the full zero modes then read γl,s = From our preliminary knowledge of the Kitaev chain, dx φ† (x)Φ (x) for s 1, 2 . The oscillating phase l,s l ∈ { } we can already guess that the above closing and reopen- factors e2iksox can now be reincorporated by going ing of the bulk gap could mark the phase transition be- R ± † † † back to the original basis Ψ = (Ψ↑, Ψ↓, Ψ↑, Ψ↓) and tween a topologically nontrivial phase with ∆− < 0 and † a trivial phase with ∆− > 0. Indeed, since the phase writing γl,s = dx ψl,s(x)Ψ(x), where we have defined ψ (x)= φ (x), ψ (x)= φ (x) and with ∆− < 0 exhibits a single pair of helical (and, thus, i,1 i,1 R i,2 i,2 effectively spinless) bulk modes gapped out by proximity- −2iksox induced superconductivity, we find ourselves in a simi- ie 2iksox lar situation as in the Kitaev chain—with the difference e −x/ξe ψe,1(x)=  so  e , (38) that now we started from a spinful model and a conven- ie2ik x − so tional superconductor rather than just assuming spinless  e−2ik x    electrons with p-wave pairing. In the following, we will ie−2iksox  confirm that the phase with ∆− < 0 is indeed the topo- e2iksox ψ (x)= e−x/ξe , (39) logical phase by demonstrating that MBSs emerge at the e,2 −ie2iksox  wire ends if and only if ∆ < 0. This is done by ex- −  e−2iksox  plicitly solving the BdG equations corresponding to the     linearized model for localized zero-energy bound states, and where we again neglect all rapidly oscillating terms. where we again focus on the case µ = 0 for simplicity. As the next and final step, we now turn to the issue As a first step, we determine zero-energy solutions of of boundary conditions. At the left edge of the system Hi and He independently. These are readily obtained by at x = 0, we demand that our zero-energy wave func- solving the BdG equation φ (x) = 0 for l i,e . In l l tion ψM (x) cl,sψl,s(x) satisfies vanishing bound- the following, we focus onH a semi-infinite system∈ { } with ∝ l,s ary conditions ψM (x = 0) = 0. Here, there is an impor- a single edge at x = 0. In order to obtain normal- tant differenceP between the two topologically nonequiva- izable eigenfunctions localized to this edge, we make lent regimes ∆ > ∆ and ∆ < ∆ . In the first case, an Ansatz for an exponentially decaying eigenfunction sc Z sc Z −x/ξl the four solutions ψl,s are linearly independent at x = 0, φl(x)= φl(0)e , where ξl > 0 is a localization length showing that the boundary condition can never be ful- that remains to be determined. Plugging in this Ansatz filled. This phase corresponds to the topologically trivial and imposing det[ ] = 0, we find the possible values of Hl one with no zero-energy bound states at the wire ends. ξl to be In the second case, however, we find that the linear com- bination ψ (x) ψ (x) ψ (x) satisfies ψ (0) = 0. ξ = α/ ∆ ∆ , (33) M i,1 e,1 M i sc Z Explicitly, the total∝ wave function− is then given by ′ | − | ξi = α/(∆sc + ∆Z ) (34) i ie−2iksox for the interior branches and 2iksox 1 −x/ξi e −x/ξe ψM (x)= e  so  e , (40)  i − ie2ik x − − so ξe = α/∆sc (35) 1  e−2ik x          for the exterior branches. Note again that we assume where we have suppressed a normalization factor. Fur- ∆ , ∆ 0 throughout this entire section, such that the Z sc ≥ thermore, we can also check that this solution indeed above localization lengths are finite and positive when- corresponds to a Majorana bound state: The opera- ever the system is fully gapped. Now solving for the † tor γM = dx ψ (x)Ψ(x) satisfies the Majorana prop- corresponding eigenfunctions, we find two linearly inde- M erty γ = γ† if and only if the wave function satisfies pendent, exponentially decaying solutions for the interior M R M ψ (x) = (f(x),g(x),f ∗(x),g∗(x))T for arbitrary func- and exterior branches each. Up to normalization, these M tions f and g up to normalization. Our wave func- read tion ψM (x) given in Eq. (40) can readily be brought ∗ − i ip i into this form by defining f(x) = ig (x) = i(e x/ξ − − −2iksox −x/ξe − 1 1 ′ e e ), which confirms that we are indeed look- φ (x)= e−x/ξi , φ (x)= e−x/ξi , i,1  ip  i,2 −i ing at an MBS. Equivalently, we can also understand the − Majorana property directly from the particle-hole sym-  1   1      (36) metry operation defined in Eq. (12). Indeed, the above ∗ condition on ψM (x) is nothing but UCψM (x) = ψM (x). i i This once again reflects the fact that an isolated MBS 1 1 φ (x)= e−x/ξe , φ (x)= e−x/ξe , is ‘its own partner’ under particle-hole symmetry and e,1  i e,2 −i  − therefore has to stay pinned to zero energy.  1   1  Figure 6 shows example plots for the MBS probabil-     (37) ity density for different values of ∆Z and ∆sc. From 9

2 2 FIG. 6. MBS probability density |ψM (x)| obtained from Eq. (40) for different parameter values. In all cases, |ψM (x)| exhibits characteristic oscillations with a period of π/kso and decays exponentially into the bulk. (a) Deep in the topological phase, there are relatively few oscillations before a uniform exponential decay with decay length ξe (orange line) sets in. Here, we used ∆Z /Eso = 0.5, ∆sc/Eso = 0.1. (b) Close to the topological phase transition, the MBS probability density decays more slowly. At long distances, the decay length is given by ξi (green line). Here, we used ∆Z /Eso = 0.3, ∆sc/Eso = 0.25. (c) Intermediate regime with ∆Z /Eso = 0.4, ∆sc/Eso = 0.2, where the two decay lengths are equal.

Eq. (40) we note that there are two possibly different lo- finite length, we refer the reader to Ref. 97. Thirdly, 98–101 calization lengths ξi and ξe entering the Majorana wave we have also neglected orbital effects caused by the function, where ξi (ξe) comes from the contribution of magnetic field. If taken into account, in the limit of the interior (exterior) branches. The interplay between strong SOI, there are regimes in which the amplitude these two contributions causes oscillations in the MBS of the oscillating MBS splitting stays constant or even probability density with a period of π/kso. decays with increasing magnetic field, in stark contrast Note that while above we have focused on the case to the commonly studied case where orbital effects of µ = 0 for analytical simplicity, MBSs also exist in the the magnetic field are neglected.100 Last but not least, more general case of finite µ as long as the bulk gap electron-electron interactions were completely neglected remains open. This stability can again be understood in our considerations. As was shown in Refs. 102–107, from the particle-hole symmetry of the BdG spectrum as MBSs can also survive in the presence of weak to mod- discussed in Sec. II. Alternatively, the presence of MBSs erate electron-electron interactions. Furthermore, also can also explicitly be verified by, e.g., numerical exact models with long-range hoppings and long-range pairing diagonalization of a corresponding tight-binding model. interactions have been studied.108,109 In conclusion, we identify the regime

∆ > µ2 + ∆2 (41) C. Rotating magnetic field and synthetic SOI | Z | sc p as the topologically nontrivial phase of the Rashba The setup described in the previous subsections re- nanowire model. We note that the same topological cri- quires SOI of Rashba type as a necessary ingredient. terion could also be obtained directly from the exact bulk In addition, the chemical potential has to be fine-tuned spectrum given in Eq. (22). to lie sufficiently close to the spin-orbit energy. These Let us close this subsection with a few remarks on two requirements limit the experimental feasibility of the the approximations that were made in order to arrive Rashba nanowire setup, in particular since the intrin- at Eqs. (40). Firstly, we were working in the limit of sic SOI of the nanowire is a material-dependent prop- strong SOI such that the superconducting and Zeeman erty that cannot be fully controlled from the outset. A terms can be treated as weak perturbations to the ki- promising alternative is the so-called synthetic SOI in- netic Hamiltonian. However, analytical solutions for the duced by a rotating magnetic field generated by, e.g., MBSs can also be obtained in the opposite limit of weak suitably arranged nanomagnets.38,42,110–116 Indeed, a lo- SOI, see Ref. 94. Secondly, we have focused on a semi- cal gauge transformation relates a Rashba nanowire sub- infinite system with a single edge at x = 0. This cor- jected to a uniform magnetic field to a nanowire without responds to the ideal case where the MBS at x = 0 is SOI subjected to a helical magnetic field.117 Therefore, completely independent of the second MBS at the other both setups exhibit a topologically non-trivial phase with end of the system. In a nanowire of finite length, on the MBSs at the wire ends. other hand, the two MBSs necessarily overlap and hy- To make this statement explicit, let us consider the bridize into a fermionic in-gap state with an energy that spin-dependent gauge transformation decreases exponentially with the length of the system. As −iσksox such, the semi-infinite approximation is justified for large Ψσ(x)= e Ψ˜ σ(x), (42) systems. For the explicit fermionic in-gap solutions and the ‘quasi-MBS’ wave functions in a system of arbitrary where the fields Ψ˜ σ(x) are now defined in a rotating 10 frame. In the rotating frame, H0 defined previously [see Eqs. (14) and (15)] takes the form

~2∂2 H = dx Ψ˜ † (x) x (µ + E ) Ψ˜ (x). 0 σ − 2m − so σ σ Z   X (43) This means that the SOI is now absent and the bulk spectrum is effectively given by two identical parabolas— one for spin up and one for spin down—centered around FIG. 7. A Dirac Hamiltonian with a mass domain wall hosts k = 0. While the superconducting term retains its form a zero-energy bound state localized to the region where the in terms of the new fields, the Zeeman term now reads mass changes its sign. As a particularly simple example, we depict the case of a step-function mass term m(x) = m0 sgn(x). 2iksox ˜ † ˜ HZ = ∆Z dx e Ψ↑(x)Ψ↓(x) + H.c., (44) Z which takes the form of a Zeeman term induced by a identify the conditions under which MBSs can emerge in helical magnetic field with a pitch of 2kso, such a system and explicitly obtain their wave function solutions. B˜(x)= B(cos(2ksox), sin(2ksox), 0). (45) We note that we will not give a detailed review of the − physics of TIs in this Tutorial. Instead, we work with a As before, MBSs can emerge from this setup if the chem- basic and rather generic edge-state picture that will be ical potential is tuned to lie in the gap opened by the sufficient to understand the emergence of MBSs in such helical magnetic field. Even more interestingly, however, systems. We refer the reader to Refs. 6, 77, 121–123 for it has been shown that in certain setups the need to fine- a pedagogical introduction to the field of TIs. tune the chemical potential is eliminated. This can, for example, be realized in systems with Ruderman-Kittel- Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interaction.118–120 Indeed, if A. Primer: Mass domain walls and Jackiw-Rebbi bound magnetic impurities are placed on a superconducting sub- states strate, a strong indirect exchange interaction of RKKY- 27 type promotes a helical spin ordering with pitch 2kF . Let us start by considering a massive 1D Dirac Hamil- tonian H = dx Φ†(x) (x)Φ(x) with Φ† = (R†,L†) and H

IV. MAJORANA BOUND STATES IN TI R (x)= i~vF σz∂x mσx, (46) HETEROSTRUCTURES H − − where σ for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting in i ∈ { } We have seen in the previous section that the presence right-/left-mover space. The bulk spectrum of this sys- 2 2 tem is given by E±(k) = (~v k) + m and thus is of helical modes is crucial for the emergence of MBSs in ± F 1D TSCs. While in Rashba nanowires the helical regime gapped whenever m = 0. We will now allow the mass 6 p is realized due to strong SOI in combination with a mag- term to become position-dependent, i.e., m = m(x). In netic field, a related approach—originally proposed in particular, we consider the effect of a mass domain wall Refs. 17 and 18 even before the nanowire setup—instead where m(x ) < 0 and m(x + ) > 0. As → −∞ → ∞ exploits the helical edge states of a 2D TI to engineer was first shown by Jackiw and Rebbi in Ref. 88, such a MBSs. As opposed to the nanowire case, where time- domain wall binds a localized zero-energy state. reversal symmetry needs to be explicitly broken in or- Let us illustrate this statement by considering the par- der to reach the helical regime, the helical regime in TIs ticularly simple case where the mass has a step-function emerges in the presence of time-reversal symmetry. In- profile m(x) = m0 sgn(x) with m0 > 0, see Fig. 7. We deed, the key feature of a 2D TI is the existence of a can now readily solve for a normalizable zero-energy state pair of gapless helical edge states with an approximately by making the Ansatz linear dispersion [see also Fig. 8(a)] in addition to a fully φ− ex/ξ− x< 0, gapped bulk. The two counterpropagating edge states φ(x)= 0 (47) + −x/ξ+ carry opposite spin projections and are related to each (φ0 e x> 0, other by time-reversal symmetry. In the following, we will first review the general mech- with the respective localization lengths ξ± > 0. By solv- anism leading to the emergence of bound states at mass ing for zero-energy eigenstates in the intervals ( , 0) domain walls in a system with two counterpropagat- and (0, + ) independently and then imposing continuity−∞ 88,89 ∞ + − ing linearly dispersing states. Subsequently, we will of the solution at x = 0 by requiring φ0 = φ0 =: φ0, we demonstrate how this can lead to the emergence of MBSs find that there indeed exists a normalizable zero-energy T when the edge of a TI is proximitized by a conventional solution with ξ± = ~vF /m0 and φ0 = (1,i) up to an superconductor. As in the Rashba nanowire case, we overall normalization constant. 11

While we have presented a concrete example for illus- they carry opposite spin projections. The corresponding trative purposes, it can be shown that the existence of term in the Hamiltonian can be written as the above solution does not depend on the exact form of † the domain wall. Indeed, for a more general domain-wall HZ = ∆Z dx R (x)L(x) + H.c., (50) profile with the asymptotic behavior m(x ) < 0 Z → −∞ and m(x + ) > 0, we find a zero-energy bound state where ∆Z is the strength of the Zeeman term. Secondly, of the form→ ∞ placing the TI edge in proximity to a conventional s- wave superconductor gives rise to a proximity-induced x ′ ′ − m(x )dx /~vF 1 φ(x) e R0 . (48) superconducting term described by ∝ i   H = ∆ dx R(x)L(x) + H.c., (51) The fact that the above zero-energy solution exists in- sc sc dependently of the exact mass profile function can be Z where the superconducting pairing potential ∆ is taken understood from the theory of symmetry-protected topo- sc to be real. If we additionally allow for a small but pos- logical phases of matter. Indeed, the Hamiltonian given sibly finite chemical potential (measured from the Dirac in Eq. (46) has a chiral symmetry92,93 expressed by point), it is easy to check that the bulk spectrum of the (k), σ = 0. The two phases with m ≷ 0 corre- y 0 total Hamiltonian H = H + H + H is once again {Hspond to} two topologically distinct phases that cannot kin Z sc given by Eq. (31). As such, we already know that the smoothly be deformed into each other unless chiral sym- bulk will be fully gapped unless metry is broken. A domain wall between these two dis- tinct phases then hosts a bound state with an energy that 2 2 2 ∆Z = ∆sc + µ . (52) is pinned to zero. This follows because chiral symmetry imposes that every state with energy +E has a partner Motivated by our previous discussion of the Jackiw-Rebbi with energy E. The single bound state at the domain model, we would like to see what happens at a domain wall can therefore− not be removed from zero energy un- wall between the two topologically inequivalent phases less chiral symmetry is broken. Note that while this ar- separated by this gap closing point. If we assume for gument is superficially similar to the case of particle-hole concreteness that ∆Z 0, the two inequivalent gapped ≥ symmetry discussed earlier, the zero-energy state found phases are characterized by ∆− ≷ 0, where we have de- 2 2 in the Jackiw-Rebbi model is an ordinary fermionic zero- fined ∆− = ∆sc + µ ∆Z in the exact same way as in mode and not an MBS. This can easily be seen from Sec. III. We will now confirm− the existence of a domain Eq. (48). Generally, since we are dealing with a usual wall bound statep by an explicit calculation. Indeed, it will single-particle Hamiltonian rather than a BdG Hamilto- turn out that this domain wall bound state is an MBS nian, there is no redundancy in the spectrum of excita- protected by particle-hole symmetry. In the following, we tions and each eigenstate of the Hamiltonian corresponds set µ = 0 for simplicity. Let us consider a TI edge sepa- to a usual fermionic excitation. rated into two segments, where one segment is in contact to a ferromagnet and the other one is proximitized by an s-wave superconductor, see Fig. 8(b). For simplicity, B. MBSs at domain walls in 2D TIs we will take the two segments to be semi-infinite and as- sume a step-function profile for ∆Z , ∆sc > 0. The total With a basic understanding of the Jackiw-Rebbi model Hamiltonian incorporating the domain wall then reads H = 1 dx Φ†(x) (x)Φ(x) with Φ† = (R†,L†,R,L) and and the formation of bound states at mass domain walls, 2 H let us turn our attention to the construction of MBSs (x)=R i~vF ∂xσz + Θ( x)∆Z ηzσx + Θ(x)∆scηyσy, from the edge states of a 2D TI. For simplicity, we focus H − − (53) on the case where the spin component along one axis, say, where σi (ηi) for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting the z axis, is conserved. Deep inside the bulk gap, we can in right-/left-mover∈ (particle-hole) { } space and Θ(x) is the linearize the edge state dispersion around the Dirac point Heaviside step function. We can now adopt the strategy k = 0, see Fig. 8(a). Therefore, the effective low-energy developed in the previous subsection to show that there Hamiltonian describing the 1D edge states can be written is a single MBS localized at the interface, which we have in terms of a left-moving field L(x) with spin up and a taken to lie at x = 0 without loss of generality. This right-moving field R(x) with spin down. The kinetic term involves first solving for decaying eigenstates for x > 0 then takes the form of a Dirac Hamiltonian and x < 0 separately and then forming suitable linear combinations to satisfy the boundary condition at the † † ~ −x/ξ+ Hkin = i vF dx [R (x)∂xR(x) L (x)∂xL(x)]. (49) interface. With the Ansatz φ+(x) = φ+(0)e for − − x/ξ− Z x > 0 [φ−(x) = φ−(0)e for x < 0], we immediately We will now consider two different gap-opening mecha- obtain the localization lengths nisms for the helical edge states: Firstly, an in-plane Zee- ξ = ~v /∆ , x< 0, (54) man term breaks time-reversal symmetry and couples the − F Z ~ left- and the right-moving edge states due to the fact that ξ+ = vF /∆sc, x> 0. (55) 12

FIG. 8. (a) Schematic spectrum of a 2D TI. We take the sample to be finite along the y axis and infinite along the x axis such that kx remains a good quantum number. While the bulk exhibits an energy gap (black lines), there is a pair of gapless helical edge states (orange lines) propagating along the edges of the sample. (b) The gapless helical edge states of a 2D TI can be gapped out either by proximity-induced superconductivity (grey region) or by a magnetic term (light blue region). An interface between these two opposite gap-opening mechanisms hosts an MBS (shown in red). (c) The existence of a bound state can be understood from the fact that the Dirac mass ∆− = ∆sc − ∆Z changes sign at the interface between the two regions. In that sense, the emerging MBS can be interpreted as a special variant of a Jackiw-Rebbi bound state (see Fig. 7) protected by particle-hole symmetry rather than chiral symmetry.

For each of the two segments, we find that the subspace that the two phases with ∆− ≷ 0 are topologically dis- of exponentially decaying zero-energy eigenfunctions is tinct and cannot be connected to each other without clos- two-fold degenerate. Explicitly, this subspace is spanned ing and reopening the bulk gap. Similarly, the MBS will by the linearly independent eigenfunctions also persist in the presence of a finite µ as long as the bulk gap remains open. Motivated by the basic mecha- i 0 nism discussed above, various realizations of MBSs in TI − 124–131 1 − 0 − heterostructures have been proposed theoretically. φ (x)= ex/ξ , φ (x)= ex/ξ , (56) −,1  0  −,2 i While the ideas discussed in this section are extremely  0  1 appealing from a conceptual point of view, significant  i  0 challenges are met in their experimental realization. This −0 i is mainly due to the fact that 2D TIs are highly nontriv- φ (x)= e−x/ξ+ , φ (x)= e−x/ξ+ , +,1  0  +,2 −1  ial topological materials, the experimental detection and manipulation of which requires significant effort. Nev-  1   0      (57) ertheless, recent works report signatures of proximity- induced superconductivity on TI edge states.132,133 Al- where we suppress a normalization factor. Finally, de- ternatively, the TI edge states could also be replaced by helical hinge states of a three-dimensional (3D) second- manding that the wave function is continuous at x = 0, 7 we obtain a single bound state solution order TI. In this latter case, zero-bias peaks consistent with MBSs were measured at domain walls between fer- 139 i romagnetic and superconducting domains. −1 In variations of the above setup, MBSs could also be φ (x)= Θ( x)ex/ξ− + Θ(x)e−x/ξ+ , (58) M  i  − engineered from quantum Hall edge states in a suitable h i sample geometry.140–142 As a side remark, we mention  1    that proximitized quantum Hall systems have raised sig- where we have again suppressed a normalization factor. nificant interest not only as potential hosts for MBSs, but 143 We can readily verify that this solution does indeed sat- also for propagating chiral Majorana edge states. Sig- isfy the Majorana property as it can be brought into the natures of proximity-induced superconductivity in quan- ∗ ∗ T form φM (x) = (f(x),g(x),f (x),g (x)) with tum Hall edge states were studied in a series of recent works.140,144–148

− Finally, it is worth noting that the above setups have iex/ξ , x< 0, f(x)= ig(x)= − (59) also raised significant interest due to their possible gener- − ie−x/ξ+ , x> 0. (− Again, the presence of the MBS does not depend on the exact profile of the domain wall. Indeed, any interface 7 As opposed to conventional 3D TIs with gapless surface states, between a region dominated by magnetic field (∆− < 0) 3D second-order TIs have gapped surfaces but host gapless chi- and a region dominated by superconductivity (∆− > 0) ral or helical 1D modes propagating along the hinges of the will host an MBS, see Fig. 8(c). This reflects the fact sample,134–137 see also Ref. 138 for a popular summary. 13 alization to the regime of strong electron-electron inter- ciently close to each other, the chain can be described actions, where even more exotic bound states are pre- as an effective 1D nanowire and MBSs emerge in the dicted to emerge. In particular, if the TI (quantum same way as discussed in Sec. III.27–29 For larger inter- Hall) edge states are replaced by fractional TI (quantum impurity distances, on the other hand, a different mech- Hall) edge states, domain walls between competing gap- anism becomes important. Indeed, if the exchange inter- opening mechanisms are theoretically predicted to host action between a magnetic atom and the quasiparticles in parafermion bound states.124–126,141,142,148 These exotic the superconductor is sufficiently strong, a localized sub- zero-energy modes can be seen as a formal generaliza- gap Yu-Shiba-Rusinov (YSR) state will emerge.159–161 In tion of MBSs. In particular, while a pair of MBSs en- the case of many magnetic impurities, the correspond- codes a two-fold ground state degeneracy, a pair of ZN ing YSR states can overlap and form a chain. Such a parafermion zero modes is generally associated with an YSR chain shows many similarities to the Kitaev chain16 N-fold topologically protected ground state degeneracy. and, under specific assumptions, can be mapped onto Braiding operations of parafermion zero modes then re- the latter. As such, it becomes clear that a YSR chain alize an even richer set of non-Abelian rotations on this can realize a topologically non-trivial phase with MBSs ground state manifold. We refer the interested reader to at its ends.30–32,162–168 Indeed, a series of experiments Refs. 149–151 for pedagogical reviews of the topic. reported robust zero-bias peaks in chains of iron (Fe) On a related note, let us mention that systems of in- or cobalt (Co) atoms placed on a superconductor.169–175 teracting MBSs provide an exciting playground to study For a detailed review of MBSs in magnetic chains we re- novel phases of matter with even more exotic properties fer the reader to Refs. 85 and 87. We note that even such as topological order, emergent supersymmetry, or more complicated non-collinear magnetic textures, such chaotic behavior related to the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) as skyrmions or skyrmion chains, were proposed as an al- model,152–157 see also Ref. 158 for a review. ternative route to generate topological superconducting phases.176–186 Alternatively, we note that external driving provides V. ALTERNATIVE REALIZATIONS OF MAJORANA a powerful tool to turn initially nontopological materials BOUND STATES IN 1D SYSTEMS into topological ones.187,188 Indeed, it has been shown that a time-dependent magnetic or electric field can give 189–197 The above ideas have inspired an ever-growing list of rise to Floquet Majorana fermions. proposals aimed at the realization of MBSs in topolog- Furthermore, one can also consider unconven- ically non-trivial 1D systems. In the following, we will tional superconductors with p-wave and d-wave pairings.198–205 Here, one should mention also odd- briefly highlight several directions that we consider to be 206–210 of particularly high importance, referring the reader to frequency superconductivity. The odd-frequency pairing is hugely enhanced at the boundaries of the the excellent reviews Refs. 2–5, 78–85 for a more exhaus- 210–214 tive overview of the existing proposals. topological systems hosting MBSs. Apart from nanowires, there are several alternative Last but not least, it is worth mentioning that a mag- (quasi-)1D platforms that can host MBSs. In particu- netic field is not a necessary ingredient to generate MBSs. lar, extensive research has been carried out on graphene- Indeed, there are many alternative ways in which compet- based structures such as carbon nanoribbons and carbon ing gap-opening mechanisms can realize a phase transi- nanotubes.36–41 Since SOI effects in pristine graphene are tion between a trivial and a topological superconducting generally weak, these setups often rely on synthetic SOI phase with MBSs. This is of particular importance since as discussed in Sec. IIIC. strong magnetic fields have a detrimental effect on super- Furthermore, a topological superconducting phase conductivity. Efforts to avoid this obstacle have resulted with MBSs has also been predicted to occur in quasi- in an increased interest in time-reversal invariant sys- 1D nanowires fabricated from three-dimensional TI ma- tems. In particular, it has been found that a spinful time- reversal invariant 1D TSC hosts a Kramers pair of MBSs terials. In particular, when the wire is proximitized by a 214–226 conventional s-wave superconductor and a magnetic field at each end in the topologically non-trivial phase. is applied parallel to the wire, well-localized MBSs can Even though localized at the same position in real space, emerge at the wire ends both in the presence33,34 or in the two MBSs at a given end of the system are then pro- the absence35 of a vortex in the proximity-induced pair- tected from hybridizing by time-reversal symmetry. ing potential. In this latter case, a non-uniform chemical potential in the wire cross-section is responsible for an exceptionally strong effective SOI. VI. MAJORANA CORNER STATES Another family of promising proposals involves chains of magnetic impurities deposited on a superconducting In Sec. IV, a domain wall hosting an MBS was re- substrate. Again, both a helical magnetic ordering of the alized through couplings ∆Z (x), ∆sc(x) with an ex- impurities or—formally equivalent—a ferromagnetic or- plicit spatial dependence. More recently, the concept dering in combination with strong SOI may lead to the of higher-order topological insulators and superconduc- formation of MBSs. If the impurities are placed suffi- tors134,135,137,227–231 has opened up an alternative avenue 14

FIG. 9. (a) A 2D TI (yellow) described by the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (60) is placed on top of an s-wave superconductor (grey) and a Zeeman field is applied along the x direction (blue arrow). The Zeeman and superconducting terms gap out the helical edge states (orange) running along the edges of the sample. If the strength of the Zeeman term is larger than the proximity-induced superconductivity, we find one Majorana corner state (red) at each corner of the sample. (b) The existence of Majorana corner states can be explained by looking at the effective gap ∆−,eff = ∆sc,eff − ∆Z,eff , which is obtained by projecting the respective gap-opening terms onto the low-energy subspace spanned by the helical edge states propagating along the edges s = 0, ..., 3 of the sample. At each of the four corners, ∆−,eff changes sign, giving rise to a Majorana corner state at each corner. towards the realization of MBSs in TI heterostructures. taken to be While conventional d-dimensional TIs and TSCs exhibit ~2 2 ~2k2 gapless edge states at their (d 1)-dimensional bound- k kx y − ( )= + + ǫ τz + λ(kxσzτx kyτy), aries, nth-order d-dimensional TIs or TSCs exhibit gap- H 2m 2m ! − less edge states at their (d n)-dimensional boundaries. (60) In particular, a 2D second-order− topological supercon- where σ and τ for i x,y,z are Pauli matrices acting ductor (SOTSC) hosts MBSs at the corners of a rectan- i i ∈{ } gular sample.232–248 in spin space and on the local degree of freedom τ, respec- tively. The parameters m and λ are model-dependent One particular way to obtain such Majorana corner constants, which we take to be strictly positive in the states is to start from a conventional (first-order) TI or following. Furthermore, ǫ describes an energy shift be- TSC with helical edge states, which are then perturba- tween the two species τ 1, 1¯ . The above Hamilto- tively gapped out by small additional terms. Depending nian is time-reversal symmetric∈ { } as defined in Eq. (21). on the symmetries of the model as well as the sample Furthermore, the Hamiltonian has a four-fold rotational geometry, the gap acquired by the edge states is not nec- symmetry essarily of the same size or type for different edges. As such, domain walls between different gap-opening mech- −1 (kx, ky)= Uπ/2 ( ky, kx)Uπ/2 (61) anisms emerge naturally even for spatially uniform gap- H H − iπσz (2τ0−τz)/4 opening terms. In the following, we will illustrate this with Uπ/2 = e . concept with two simple examples. For ǫ < 0, it is well-known that the above Hamilto- nian describes a TI.249 An explicit calculation confirms that there is indeed a pair of gapless helical edge states propagating along the edges of a finite sample. Let us A. SOTSC with four corner states illustrate this in an example, where we will focus on the edge s = 0 shown in Fig. 9(a). Assuming a semi-infinite geometry such that the system is finite along the y axis Our first example is based on a model introduced and infinite along the x axis, k remains a good quan- in Ref. 232. We start from a minimal model for a x tum number, whereas k has to be replaced by i∂ . We 2D TI, which can be interpreted as a simplified ver- y y now focus on the simple case k = 0, in which− case the sion of the Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang (BHZ) Hamiltonian x Hamiltonian given in Eq. (60) reduces to originally brought forward in Ref. 249 to describe HgTe quantum wells. We consider a Hamiltonian of the form ~2 2 † † † † † † ∂y H = Ψ (k)Ψk with Ψ = (ψ , ψ , ψ , ψ ), (0, i∂y)= ǫ τz + iλ∂yτy. (62) k k k k↑1 k↑1¯ k↓1 k↓1¯ H − − 2m † H ! wherePψkστ (ψkστ ) creates (destroys) an electron with in- k 0 plane momentum = (kx, ky), spin σ, and an additional Solving for normalizable zero-energy solutions Φσ(y) sub- 0 local degree of freedom τ. The Hamiltonian density is ject to the boundary condition Φσ(0) = 0 now reduces to 15 a standard problem of matching decaying eigenfunctions simple point of view by just solving for edge state solu- as discussed in several instances in the previous sections. tions in the usual way and giving an intuitive explanation We readily find why these edge states have Majorana character. For a more detailed discussion of phases with propagating Ma- 0 T −y/ξ1 −y/ξ2 Φ↑(y)=(1, 1, 0, 0) (e e ), (63) jorana edge states, we refer the reader to several reviews − 4,5,77–79 0 T −y/ξ1 −y/ξ2 covering this topic. Φ↓(y)=(0, 0, 1, 1) (e e ), (64) − Explicitly, we consider a Hamiltonian of the form H = 2 2 1 † with ξ = ( λ √β)/(2ǫ) for β = λ +2~ ǫ/m and k Ψk (k)Ψk with 1/2 2 H where we have− suppressed± a normalization factor. One P 2 2 ~2 2 can check that these solutions are indeed exponentially ~ k ky (k)= x + η + λ(k σ k η σ )τ decaying for y if and only if ǫ< 0. H 2m 2m z y x − x z y z → ∞ ! Linear contributions in kx can now in principle be in- cluded perturbatively in order to verify that the above so- +Γηzτx + ∆scηyτzσy (67) lutions do indeed correspond to counterpropagating edge † † † † † and Ψ = (ψ , ψ , ψ , ψ , ψ k , ψ k , ψ k ¯, states with opposite velocities.232 However, we will con- k k↑1 k↓1 k↑1¯ k↓1¯ − ↑1 − ↓1 − ↑1 ψ k ¯). The Pauli matrices σ , τ , and η for i x,y,z tent ourselves with studying the solutions at kx = 0 given − ↓1 i i i ∈{ } above. This will allow us to determine the gap that is have the same meaning as in the previous subsection. opened in the edge state spectrum under additional terms The parameters m, λ, and Γ depend on the microscopic that we include perturbatively. realization of the model and are taken to be non-negative The first of these additional terms is a small in-plane for simplicity. Furthermore, ∆sc denotes the strength of Zeeman field that is taken along the x axis for con- the proximity-induced superconducting pairing, which is taken to be real and of opposite sign for the two species creteness, Z = ∆Z σx, where we assume ∆Z 0. H ≥ τ 1, 1¯ . Originally, the above Hamiltonian was intro- Exploiting the rotational symmetry of the unperturbed ∈{ } Hamiltonian, we obtain the low-energy projection of duced in Ref. 250 to describe two tunnel-coupled layers of s s a 2D electron gas with strong Rashba SOI ‘sandwiched’ the Zeeman term for the edge s via Φσ Z Φσ′ = 0 −s s 0 h |H | i between a top and bottom superconductor with a phase Φ U Z U Φ ′ . Explicitly, this gives us h σ| π/2H π/2| σ i difference of π. In this case, the local degree of free- 0 0 2 2 dom τ corresponds to the layer degree of freedom. The Φ Z Φ ′ = Φ Z Φ ′ = ∆Z δσσ¯ ′ , (65) h σ|H | σ i −h σ|H | σ i Hamiltonian is particle-hole symmetric and time-reversal 1 1 3 3 ′ Φ Φ ′ = Φ Φ ′ =0 σ, σ . (66) h σ|HZ | σ i h σ|HZ | σ i ∀ symmetric as defined in Eqs. (12) and (21), respectively. Furthermore, we find a four-fold rotational symmetry As such, the Zeeman term fully gaps out the edge states along the x direction, while the edge states along the −1 (kx, ky)= Uπ/2 ( ky, kx)Uπ/2 (68) y direction are not affected. Furthermore, we consider H H − iπηz σz /4 a superconducting term induced by placing the TI in for Uπ/2 = e . proximity to a bulk s-wave superconductor, see Fig. 9(a). For Γ > ∆, the system realizes a time-reversal invari- The corresponding term in the Hamiltonian is given by ant topological superconductor, as can be checked by a sc = ∆scηyσy, where ηy is an additional Pauli matrix direct calculation of the edge state wave functions. For H acting in particle-hole space and we assume ∆sc to be this, we focus again on the edge s = 0 as shown in real and non-negative for simplicity. It is clear that su- Fig. 10(a). Assuming a semi-infinite geometry, kx re- perconductivity opens a gap of equal size along all edges mains a good quantum number, and we restrict ourselves of the sample. Therefore, for ∆Z > ∆sc, a domain wall to the simplest case kx = 0. After a short calculation of the type discussed in Subsec. IVB is naturally real- outlined in Ref. 250, we find that the edge state wave ized at all four corners of a rectangular sample. We thus functions are in this case given by find one Majorana corner state per corner, see Fig. 9(b). 0 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ T Apart from the model presented here, other realizations Φ+(y) = (f1,g1,f2,g2,f1 ,g1 ,f2 ,g2) , (69) of Majorana corner states via similar mechanisms were 0 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ T Φ−(y) = (g1 , f1 ,g2 , f2 ,g1, f1,g2, f2) , (70) proposed in Refs. 233–242. − − − − ′ ∗ ∗ −y/ξ 2iksoy −y/ξ where f1 = g2 = if2 = ig1 = e e e − −′ − with ξ = λ/(Γ ∆sc) and ξ = λ/∆sc. We can now see B. SOTSC with two corner states why these edge− states are referred to as propagating Ma- jorana edge states: Indeed, the above solutions at kx =0 0 ∗ 0 Our second example is based on a model introduced satisfy the Majorana property UC[Φ±(y)] = Φ±(y). in Ref. 243. We start from a 2D time-reversal invariant Again, linear contributions in kx could now be included topological superconductor with helical Majorana edge perturbatively.243 states propagating along the edges of a large but finite If an additional in-plane Zeeman field is added, time- sample. While a detailed characterization of phases with reversal symmetry is broken and the helical edge states propagating Majorana edge states is beyond the scope of are gapped out. The corresponding term in the Hamilto- this Tutorial, we will look at this example from a very nian can be written as = ∆ [cos(φ)η σ + sin(φ)σ ], HZ Z z x y 16

FIG. 10. (a) A 2D topological superconductor (yellow) with helical Majorana edge states (orange) described by the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (67) is subjected to an in-plane Zeeman field (blue) of an angle φ with respect to the x axis. The Zeeman field breaks time-reversal symmetry and gaps out the Majorana edge states. MBSs (red) appear at two opposite corners of the sample. (b) The existence of these Majorana corner states can be explained by looking at the effective gap ∆Z,eff [see Eq. (71)], which is obtained by projecting the Zeeman term onto the low-energy subspace spanned by the helical edge states propagating along the edges s = 0, ..., 3 of the sample. At two opposite corners of the system, the effective gap changes sign, implying the presence of a bound state of Jackiw-Rebbi type. Since the edge states in the first-order phase correspond to helical Majorana edge states, these zero-energy corner states are MBSs protected by particle-hole symmetry. where the angle φ describes the orientation of the Zeeman the topologically nontrivial phase and how the explicit field. It is now straightforward to calculate the projec- Majorana wave functions can be obtained by elementary tion of the Zeeman term onto the low-energy subspace methods. We have discussed the properties of the result- spanned by the helical edge states for a given edge. We ing MBSs and have presented some heuristic arguments find about their stability. Throughout this Tutorial, we chose to focus on a few Φs Φs = Φ0 U −s U s Φ0 h +|HZ | −i h +| π/2HZ π/2| −i selected topics that we believe to be of high relevance = i∆Z cos(φ sπ/2). (71) to experiments while at the same time readily accessible − with elementary mathematical tools. As an outlook, let For the edge s, this leads to an effective mass term us mention a few relevant aspects of MBSs that were not ∆s ρ with ∆s = ∆ cos(φ sπ/2) and where addressed in this Tutorial. − Z,eff y Z,eff Z − ρy is a Pauli matrix acting in the low-energy subspace Firstly, we did not touch upon the characterization spanned by the helical edge states. We therefore see of topological superconductors via topological invariants. that the effective mass changes sign at two opposite This important topic is already covered in various exist- corners of the sample depending on the in-plane orien- ing reviews, see for example Refs. 4, 5, 78, and 81. tation φ of the magnetic field. Via the Jackiw-Rebbi Secondly, we did not discuss the issues related to the mechanism discussed in Subsec. IV A, these two corners experimental detection of MBSs. Among the standard host a zero-energy bound state. Since the helical edge signatures associated with MBSs is the presence of a states of the first-order phase already correspond to Ma- robust zero-bias peak of the tunneling conductance as jorana edge states, these zero-energy corner states are measured, e.g., in transport experiments.25,26,204,251–256 indeed MBSs protected by particle-hole symmetry. In However, experiments based solely on zero-bias peaks are Fig. 10, we illustrate the above mechanism for a generic nowadays known to be insufficient to conclusively demon- angle φ (0,π/2). Other realizations of Majorana cor- strate the presence of MBSs. Instead, different non- ∈ ner states involving similar arguments were proposed in topological states such as, e.g., Andreev bound states Refs. 244–248. can give rise to almost identical zero-bias anomalies. For a detailed review of this problem, we refer to Ref. 59. Al- though numerous works have reported signatures thought VII. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK to be unambiguously associated with topological super- conductivity, this issue is not yet settled and claims are In this Tutorial, we have given a pedagogical introduc- being reconsidered.257 While the basic theoretical ideas tion to the field of MBSs in semiconducting nanostruc- on which the existence of topological superconductors tures. We have reviewed some of the currently most rel- rests are sound and were never disproven, it is their evant platforms proposed to host MBSs, including prox- implementation in real materials that poses substantial imitized Rashba nanowires in a magnetic field as well challenges. In particular, superconductivity in semicon- as proximitized edge states of topological insulators. In ducting structures is typically induced by the proximity these examples, we have shown how MBSs emerge in effect.258–262 However, if the proximity effect is weak— 17 like in approaches based on sputtering—the supercon- dation and NCCR QSIT. This project received funding ducting gap is ‘soft’, which is usually attributed to dis- from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and order effects. On the other hand, if the hybridization innovation program (ERC Starting Grant, grant agree- with the bulk superconductor is too strong, the origi- ment No 757725). nal properties of the underlying semiconductor may be lost. Typically, the superconductor ‘metallizes’ the semi- 1E. Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento 14, “Teoria simmetrica conducting nanostructure, resulting in strongly reduced dell’elettrone e del positrone,” 171 (1937). 263–267 SOI and g-factors. Moreover, due to screening, it 2S. R. Elliott and M. Franz, “Colloquium: Majorana fermions in is challenging to control the position of the chemical po- nuclear, particle, and solid-state physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, tential in order to tune it to the ‘sweet spot’. Thus, 137 (2015). 3 future experiments need to find ways to avoid or re- C. Beenakker, “Search for Majorana Fermions in Superconduc- tors,” Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4, 113 (2013). duce such metallization effects on the semiconductors. 4M. Sato and S. Fujimoto, “Majorana Fermions and Topology in This can be achieved, e.g., by adding a thin insulating Superconductors,” J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85, 072001 (2016). layer. Another Majorana signature worth mentioning is 5M. Sato and Y. Ando, “Topological superconductors: a review,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076501 (2017). the fractional Josephson effect arising in a topological 6 superconductor–normal metal–topological superconduc- M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, “Colloquium: Topological insula- tors,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010). tor (TS–N–TS) junction, giving rise to an unconventional 7G. Moore and N. Read, “Nonabelions in the fractional quantum 4π-periodic Josephson current as opposed to the usual Hall effect,” Nucl. Phys. B 360, 362 (1991). 2π-periodic Josephson current.16,18,23,24,268–274 Alterna- 8G. E. Volovik, “Fermion zero modes on vortices in chiral super- conductors,” JETP Lett. 70, 609 (1999). tively, emerging exotic phases could be probed in cav- 9 ities via photonic transport275–278 characterized by the N. Read and D. Green, “Paired states of fermions in two di- mensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries complex transmission coefficient that relates input and and the fractional quantum Hall effect,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 10267 output photonic fields, allowing to probe the system in (2000). a global and non-invasive way. Moreover, this could also 10T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, “Quasiparticle localization in be used to manipulate states. Generally, these detection superconductors with spin-orbit scattering,” Phys. Rev. B 61, 9690 (2000). methods could be supplemented by additional signatures 11D. A. Ivanov, “Non-Abelian Statistics of Half-Quantum Vortices observable in the bulk such as, e.g., the closing of the in p-Wave Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001). topological bulk gap and the inversion of spin polariza- 12G. E. Volovik, The Universe in a Helium Droplet (Oxford Uni- tion in the energy bands.279–286 For pedagogical reviews versity Press, Oxford, 2003). 13 covering experimental Majorana signatures, we refer to G. E. Volovik, “Fermion zero modes at the boundary of super- fluid 3He-B,” JETP Lett. 90, 398 (2009). Refs. 2, 3, 78, 79, and 81. 14A. Y. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Last but not least, we did not discuss the non-Abelian Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003). braiding statistics of MBSs in any detail. This choice was 15C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das motivated by the fact that this Tutorial mainly focuses Sarma, “Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum compu- tation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008). on 1D systems, where the process of spatially exchanging 16A. Y. Kitaev, “Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires,” two MBSs is not as straightforward as in two dimensions. Phys. Usp. 44, 131 (2001). Nevertheless, braiding protocols for MBSs in strictly 1D 17L. Fu and C. L. Kane, “Superconducting Proximity Effect and systems have been brought forward,287,288 which, how- Majorana Fermions at the Surface of a Topological Insulator,” 100 ever, typically rely on the presence of additional protect- Phys. Rev. Lett. , 096407 (2008). 18L. Fu and C. L. Kane, “Josephson current and noise at ing symmetries or the ability to fine-tune certain sys- a superconductor/quantum-spin-Hall-insulator/superconductor tem parameters. Alternatively, braiding schemes em- junction,” Phys. Rev. B 79, 161408(R) (2009). ploying networks of topologically nontrivial 1D systems 19J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, have been proposed,289–295 where the MBSs can either “Generic New Platform for Topological Quantum Computation 104 be moved physically or an effective braiding can be re- Using Semiconductor Heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , 040502 (2010). alized via tunable couplings between neighboring MBSs 20J. Alicea, “Majorana fermions in a tunable semiconductor de- at fixed spatial positions. Similarly, also measurement- vice,” Phys. Rev. B 81, 125318 (2010). based braiding schemes allow one to mimic an effec- 21M. Sato, Y. Takahashi, and S. Fujimoto, “Non-Abelian Topolog- tive braiding of two MBSs without the need to physi- ical Order in s-Wave Superfluids of Ultracold Fermionic Atoms,” 103 cally move them.296–298 For a review of Majorana braid- Phys. Rev. Lett. , 020401 (2009). 22M. Sato, Y. Takahashi, and S. Fujimoto, “Non-Abelian topolog- ing statistics and potential applications in topological ical orders and Majorana fermions in spin-singlet superconduc- quantum computation, we refer the interested reader to tors,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 134521 (2010). Refs. 2, 3, 78, 79, 82, and 83 23R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, “Majorana Fermions and a Topological Phase Transition in Semiconductor- Superconductor Heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 24Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, “Helical Liquids and Majorana Bound States in Quantum Wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010). We thank Daniel Loss for valuable discussions. This 25J. D. Sau, S. Tewari, R. M. Lutchyn, T. D. Stanescu, and S. work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foun- Das Sarma, “Non-Abelian quantum order in spin-orbit-coupled 18

semiconductors: Search for topological Majorana particles in conductivity in a phase-controlled Josephson junction,” Nature solid-state systems,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 214509 (2010). 569, 93 (2019). 26T. D. Stanescu, R. M. Lutchyn, and S. Das Sarma, “Majorana 47M. C. Dartiailh, W. Mayer, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickramasinghe, fermions in semiconductor nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 144522 A. Matos-Abiague, I. Zuti´c,ˇ and J. Shabani, “Phase Signature (2011). of Topological Transition in Josephson Junctions,” Phys. Rev. 27J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, A. Yazdani, and D. Loss, “Topological Lett. 126, 036802 (2021). Superconductivity and Majorana Fermions in RKKY Systems,” 48V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 186805 (2013). M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, “Signatures of Majorana 28M. M. Vazifeh and M. Franz, “Self-Organized Topological State Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor-Semiconductor Nanowire with Majorana Fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 206802 (2013). Devices,” Science 336, 1003 (2012). 29B. Braunecker and P. Simon, “Interplay between Classical 49A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, and Magnetic Moments and Superconductivity in Quantum One- H. Shtrikman, “Zero-bias peaks and splitting in an Al–InAs Dimensional Conductors: Toward a Self-Sustained Topological nanowire topological superconductor as a signature of Majorana Majorana Phase,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 147202 (2013). fermions,” Nat. Phys. 8, 887 (2012). 30T.-P. Choy, J. M. Edge, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. 50L. P. Rokhinson, X. Liu, and J. K. Furdyna, “The fractional a.c. J. Beenakker, “Majorana fermions emerging from magnetic Josephson effect in a semiconductor–superconductor nanowire nanoparticles on a superconductor without spin-orbit coupling,” as a signature of Majorana particles,” Nat. Phys. 8, 795 (2012). Phys. Rev. B 84, 195442 (2011). 51M. T. Deng, C. L. Yu, G. Y. Huang, M. Larsson, P. Caroff, 31S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, and H. Q. Xu, “Anomalous Zero-Bias Conductance Peak in a “Proposal for realizing Majorana fermions in chains of mag- Nb–InSb Nanowire–Nb Hybrid Device,” Nano Lett. 12, 6414 netic atoms on a superconductor,” Phys. Rev. B 88, 020407(R) (2012). (2013). 52J. R. Williams, A. J. Bestwick, P. Gallagher, S. S. Hong, 32F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, “Topological Y. Cui, A. S. Bleich, J. G. Analytis, I. R. Fisher, and D. superconducting phase in helical Shiba chains,” Phys. Rev. B Goldhaber-Gordon, “Unconventional Josephson Effect in Hy- 88, 155420 (2013). brid Superconductor-Topological Insulator Devices,” Phys. Rev. 33A. Cook and M. Franz, “Majorana fermions in a topological- Lett. 109, 056803 (2012). insulator nanowire proximity-coupled to an s-wave supercon- 53E. J. H. Lee, X. Jiang, R. Aguado, G. Katsaros, C. M. Lieber, ductor,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 201105(R) (2011). and S. De Franceschi, “Zero-Bias Anomaly in a Nanowire Quan- 34A. M. Cook, M. M. Vazifeh, and M. Franz, “Stability of tum Dot Coupled to Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, Majorana fermions in proximity-coupled topological insulator 186802 (2012). nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 155431 (2012). 54H. O. H. Churchill, V. Fatemi, K. Grove-Rasmussen, M. T. 35H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Majorana bound states Deng, P. Caroff, H. Q. Xu, and C. M. Marcus, “Superconductor- in topological insulators without a vortex,” arXiv:2103.13412. nanowire devices from tunneling to the multichannel regime: 36J. Klinovaja, S. Gangadharaiah, and D. Loss, “Electric-field- Zero-bias oscillations and magnetoconductance crossover,” induced Majorana Fermions in Armchair Carbon Nanotubes,” Phys. Rev. B 87, 241401(R) (2013). Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 196804 (2012). 55M. T. Deng, S. Vaitiekenas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, 37R. Egger and K. Flensberg, “Emerging Dirac and Majorana K. Flensberg, J. Nyg˚ard, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, “Ma- fermions for carbon nanotubes with proximity-induced pairing jorana bound state in a coupled quantum-dot hybrid-nanowire and spiral magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 235462 (2012). system,” Science 354, 1557 (2016). 38J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, “Giant Spin-Orbit Interaction Due 56S. Vaitiek˙enas, M.-T. Deng, J. Nyg˚ard, P. Krogstrup, and C. to Rotating Magnetic Fields in Graphene Nanoribbons,” Phys. M. Marcus, “Effective g Factor of Subgap States in Hybrid Rev. X 3, 011008 (2013). Nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 037703 (2018). 39J. D. Sau and S. Tewari, “Topological superconducting state 57M.-T. Deng, S. Vaitiek˙enas, E. Prada, P. San-Jose, J. Nyg˚ard, and Majorana fermions in carbon nanotubes,” Phys. Rev. B P. Krogstrup, R. Aguado, and C. M. Marcus, “Nonlocality of 88, 054503 (2013). Majorana modes in hybrid nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 085125 40C. Dutreix, M. Guigou, D. Chevallier, and C. Bena, “Majorana (2018). fermions in honeycomb lattices,” Eur. Phys. J. B 87, 296 (2014). 58M. W. A. de Moor, J. D. S. Bommer, D. Xu, G. W. Win- 41M. Marganska, L. Milz, W. Izumida, C. Strunk, and M. Grifoni, kler, A. E. Antipov, A. Bargerbos, G. Wang, N. van Loo, R. “Majorana quasiparticles in semiconducting carbon nanotubes,” L. M. O. het Veld, S. Gazibegovic, D. Car, J. A. Logan, M. Phys. Rev. B 97, 075141 (2018). Pendharkar, J. S. Lee, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, C. J. Palmstrøm, 42M. M. Desjardins, L. C. Contamin, M. R. Delbecq, M. C. Dar- R. M. Lutchyn, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and H. Zhang, “Electric tiailh, L. E. Bruhat, T. Cubaynes, J. J. Viennot, F. Mallet, S. field tunable superconductor–semiconductor coupling in Majo- Rohart, A. Thiaville, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, “Synthetic spin- rana nanowires,” New J. Phys. 20, 103049 (2018). orbit interaction for Majorana devices,” Nat. Mater. 18, 1060 59E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. A. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. (2019). H. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nyg˚ard, R. Aguado, and L. 43F. Pientka, A. Keselman, E. Berg, A. Yacoby, A. Stern, and B. I. P. Kouwenhoven, “From Andreev to Majorana bound states Halperin, “Topological Superconductivity in a Planar Josephson in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanowires,” Nat. Rev. Junction,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 021032 (2017). Phys. 2, 575 (2020). 44M. Hell, M. Leijnse, and K. Flensberg, “Two-Dimensional Plat- 60G. Kells, D. Meidan, and P. W. Brouwer, “Near-zero-energy end form for Networks of Majorana Bound States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. states in topologically trivial spin-orbit coupled superconduct- 118, 107701 (2017). ing nanowires with a smooth confinement,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 45A. Fornieri, A. M. Whiticar, F. Setiawan, E. Portol´es, A. C. 100503(R) (2012). C. Drachmann, A. Keselman, S. Gronin, C. Thomas, T. Wang, 61C. Fleckenstein, F. Dominguez, N. Traverso Ziani, and B. R. Kallaher, G. C. Gardner, E. Berg, M. J. Manfra, A. Stern, Trauzettel, “Decaying spectral oscillations in a Majorana wire C. M. Marcus, and F. Nichele, “Evidence of topological super- with finite coherence length,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 155425 (2018). conductivity in planar Josephson junctions,” Nature 569, 89 62F. Pe˜naranda, R. Aguado, P. San-Jose, and E. Prada, “Quan- (2019). tifying wave-function overlaps in inhomogeneous Majorana 46H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. T. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 235406 (2018). Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. 63A. Ptok, A. Kobia lka, and T. Doma´nski, “Controlling the bound Molenkamp, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby , “Topological super- states in a quantum-dot hybrid nanowire,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 19

195430 (2017). Inf. 1, 15001 (2015). 64C. Moore, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Tewari, “Two-terminal 83M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, “Introduction to topological super- charge tunneling: Disentangling Majorana zero modes from conductivity and Majorana fermions,” Semicond. Sci. Technol. partially separated Andreev bound states in semiconductor- 27, 124003 (2012). superconductor heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 165302 84F. von Oppen, Y. Peng, and F. Pientka, “Topological super- (2018). conducting phases in one dimension,” in Topological Aspects of 65C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Das Sarma, “An- Condensed Matter Physics: Lecture Notes of the Les Houches dreev bound states versus Majorana bound states in quantum Summer School (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017). dot–nanowire–superconductor hybrid structures: Trivial ver- 85R. Pawlak, S. Hoffman, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, sus topological zero-bias conductance peaks,” Phys. Rev. B 96, “Majorana fermions in magnetic chains,” Progress in Particle 075161 (2017). and Nuclear Physics 107, 1 (2019). 66D. J. Alspaugh, D. E. Sheehy, M. O. Goerbig, and P. Si- 86N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, mon, “Volkov-Pankratov states in topological superconductors,” H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023146 (2020). Steuerman, “Materials challenges and opportunities for quan- 67C. Reeg, O. Dmytruk, D. Chevallier, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, tum computing hardware,” Science 372, eabb2823 (2021). “Zero-energy Andreev bound states from quantum dots in prox- 87B. J¨ack, Y. Xie, and A. Yazdani, “Detecting and Distinguish- imitized Rashba nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 245407 (2018). ing Majorana Zero Modes with the Scanning Tunneling Micro- 68B. D. Woods, J. Chen, S. M. Frolov, and T. D. Stanescu, “Zero- scope,” arXiv:2103.13210. energy pinning of topologically trivial bound states in multiband 88R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, “Solitons with fermion number 1/2,” semiconductor–superconductor nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 100, Phys. Rev. D 13, 3398 (1976). 125407 (2019). 89R. Jackiw and J. Schrieffer, “Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 69C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Das Sarma, “Con- in Condensed Matter and Relativistic Field Theories,” Nucl. ductance smearing and anisotropic suppression of induced su- Phys. B 190, 253 (1981). perconductivity in a Majorana nanowire,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 90J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, “Theory of Su- 024510 (2019). perconductivity,” Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957). 70J. Chen, B. D. Woods, P. Yu, M. Hocevar, D. Car, S. R. Plissard, 91E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, “Two soluble models of an E. P. A. M. Bakkers, T. D. Stanescu, and S. M. Frolov, “Ubiqui- antiferromagnetic chain,” Ann. Phys. 16, 407 (1961). tous Non-Majorana Zero-Bias Conductance Peaks in Nanowire 92S. Ryu, A. P. Schnyder, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Devices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 107703 (2019). “Topological insulators and superconductors: tenfold way and 71E. J. H. Lee, X. Jiang, R. Aguado, G. Katsaros, C. M. Lieber, dimensional hierarchy,” New J. Phys. 12, 065010 (2010). and S. De Franceschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 186802 (2012). 93C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, “Classi- 72C. J¨unger, R. Delagrange, D. Chevallier, S. Lehmann, K. A. fication of topological quantum matter with symmetries,” Rev. Dick, C. Thelander, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, A. Baumgartner, and Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016). C. Sch¨onenberger, “Magnetic-Field-Independent Subgap States 94J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, “Composite Majorana fermion wave in Hybrid Rashba Nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 017701 functions in nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 085408 (2012). (2020). 95P. Stˇreda and P. Seba,ˇ “Antisymmetric Spin Filtering in One- 73O. Dmytruk, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Pinning of Andreev Dimensional Electron Systems with Uniform Spin-Orbit Cou- bound states to zero energy in two-dimensional superconductor– pling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 256601 (2003). semiconductor Rashba heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 96J. Klinovaja, M. J. Schmidt, B. Braunecker, and D. Loss, “He- 245431 (2020). lical Modes in Carbon Nanotubes Generated by Strong Electric 74P. Yu, J. Chen, M. Gomanko, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 156809 (2011). Bakkers, K. Zuo, V. Mourik, and S. M. Frolov, “Non-Majorana 97V. Chua, K. Laubscher, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, “Majorana states yield nearly quantized conductance in superconductor- zero modes and their bosonization,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 155416 semiconductor nanowire devices,” arXiv:2004.08583. (2020). 75M. Kayyalha, D. Xiao, R. Zhang, J. Shin, J. Jiang, F. Wang, Y.- 98J. S. Lim, R. Lopez, and L. Serra, “Emergence of Majorana F. Zhao, R. Xiao, L. Zhang, K. M. Fijalkowski, P. Mandal, M. modes in cylindrical nanowires,” Europhys. Lett. 103, 37004 Winnerlein, C. Gould, Q. Li, L. W. Molenkamp, M. H. W. Chan, (2013). N. Samarth, and C.-Z. Chang, “Absence of evidence for chiral 99B. Nijholt and A. R. Akhmerov, “Orbital effect of magnetic Majorana modes in quantum anomalous Hall-superconductor field on the Majorana phase diagram,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 235434 devices,” Science 367, 64 (2020). (2016). 76M. Valentini, F. Pe˜naranda, A. Hofmann, M. Brauns, R. 100O. Dmytruk and J. Klinovaja, “Suppression of the overlap Hauschild, P. Krogstrup, P. San-Jose, E. Prada, R. Aguado, between Majorana fermions by orbital magnetic effects in and G. Katsaros, “Non-topological zero bias peaks in full- semiconducting-superconducting nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 97, shell nanowires induced by flux tunable Andreev states,” 155409 (2018). arXiv:2008.02348. 101P. W´ojcik and M. P. Nowak, “Durability of the superconducting 77B. A. Bernevig and T. L. Hughes, Topological Insulators and gap in Majorana nanowires under orbital effects of a magnetic Topological Superconductors (Princeton University Press, 2013). field,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 235445 (2018). 78J. Alicea, “New directions in the pursuit of Majorana fermions 102S. Gangadharaiah, B. Braunecker, P. Simon, and D. Loss, “Ma- in solid state systems,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012). jorana Edge States in Interacting One-Dimensional Systems,” 79R. Aguado, “Majorana quasiparticles in condensed matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 036801 (2011). Riv. Nuovo Cim. 40, 523 (2017). 103E. M. Stoudenmire, J. Alicea, O. A. Starykh, and M. P. 80R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, P. A. Fisher, “Interaction effects in topological superconducting Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, “Majorana zero modes wires supporting Majorana fermions,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 014503 in superconductor–semiconductor heterostructures,” Nat. Rev. (2011). Mater. 3, 52 (2018). 104H. Katsura, D. Schuricht, and M. Takahashi, “Exact ground 81T. D. Stanescu and S. Tewari, “Majorana fermions in semicon- states and topological order in interacting Kitaev/Majorana ductor nanowires: fundamentals, modeling, and experiment,” J. chains,” Phys. Rev. B 92, 115137 (2015). Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 233201 (2013). 105N. M. Gergs, L. Fritz, and D. Schuricht, “Topological order 82S. Das Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, “Majorana zero in the Kitaev/Majorana chain in the presence of disorder and modes and topological quantum computation,” npj Quantum interactions,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 075129 (2016). 20

106F. Dom´ınguez, J. Cayao, P. San-Jose, R. Aguado, A. L. Yey- 130N. Traverso Ziani, C. Fleckenstein, L. Vigliotti, B. Trauzettel, ati, and E. Prada, “Zero-energy pinning from interactions in and M. Sassetti, “From fractional solitons to Majorana fermions Majorana nanowires,” npj Quant. Mater. 2, 13 (2017). in a paradigmatic model of topological superconductivity,” 107A. Wieckowski and A. Ptok, “Influence of long-range interaction Phys. Rev. B 101, 195303 (2020). on Majorana zero modes,” Phys. Rev. B 100, 144510 (2019). 131C. Fleckenstein, N. Traverso Ziani, A. Calzona, M. Sassetti, and 108O. Viyuela, D. Vodola, G. Pupillo, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, B. Trauzettel, “Formation and detection of Majorana modes in “Topological massive Dirac edge modes and long-range super- quantum spin Hall trenches,” Phys. Rev. B 103, 125303 (2021). conducting Hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 125121 (2016). 132E. Bocquillon, R. S. Deacon, J. Wiedenmann, P. Leubner, T. 109P. Cats, A. Quelle, O. Viyuela, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and M. Klapwijk, C. Br¨une, K. Ishibashi, H. Buhmann, and L. W. C. Morais Smith, “Staircase to higher-order topological phase Molenkamp, “Gapless Andreev bound states in the quantum transitions,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 121106(R) (2018). spin Hall insulator HgTe,” Nature Nanotech. 12, 137 (2017). 110M. Kjaergaard, K. W¨olms, and K. Flensberg, “Majorana 133H.-H. Sun, M.-X. Wang, F. Zhu, G.-Y. Wang, H.-Y. Ma, Z.-A. fermions in superconducting nanowires without spin-orbit cou- Xu, Q. Liao, Y. Lu, C.-L. Gao, Y.-Y. Li, C. Liu, D. Qian, D. pling,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 020503(R) (2012). Guan, and J.-F. Jia, “Coexistence of Topological Edge State 111J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, and D. Loss, “Transition from Fractional and Superconductivity in Bismuth Ultrathin Film,” Nano Lett. to Majorana Fermions in Rashba Nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 3035 (2017). 109, 236801 (2012). 134W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, “Elec- 112 J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, “Spintronics in MoS2 monolayer quan- tric multipole moments, topological multipole moment pump- tum wires,” Phys. Rev. B 88, 075404 (2013). ing, and chiral hinge states in crystalline insulators,” Phys. Rev. 113A. Matos-Abiague, J. Shabani, A. D. Kent, G. L. Fatin, B. B 96, 245115 (2017). Scharf, and I. Zuti´c,ˇ “Tunable magnetic textures: From Ma- 135Z. Song, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, “(d − 2)-Dimensional Edge jorana bound states to braiding,” Solid State Communications States of Rotation Symmetry Protected Topological States,” 262, 1 (2017). Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246402 (2017). 114G. L. Fatin, A. Matos-Abiague, B. Scharf, and I. Zuti´c,ˇ “Wire- 136J. Langbehn, Y. Peng, L. Trifunovic, F. von Oppen, and P. less Majorana Bound States: From Magnetic Tunability to W. Brouwer, “Reflection-Symmetric Second-Order Topological Braiding,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 077002 (2016). Insulators and Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246401 115T. Zhou, N. Mohanta, J. E. Han, A. Matos-Abiague, and I. (2017). Zuti´c,ˇ “Tunable magnetic textures in spin valves: From spin- 137F. Schindler, A. M. Cook, M. G. Verginory, Z. Wang, S. S. P. tronics to Majorana bound states,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 134505 Parking, B. A. Bernevig, and T. Neupert, “Higher-order topo- (2019). logical insulators,” Sci. Adv. 4, eaat0346 (2018). 116N. Mohanta, T. Zhou, J.-W. Xu, J. E. Han, A. D. Kent, J. 138S. A. Parameswaran and Y. Wan, “Topological insulators turn Shabani, I. Zuti´c,ˇ and A. Matos-Abiague, Phys. Rev. Applied a corner,” Physics 10, 132 (2017). 12, 034048 (2019). 139B. J¨ack, Y. Xie, J. Li, S. Jeon, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yaz- 117B. Braunecker, G. I. Japaridze, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, “Spin- dani, “Observation of a Majorana zero mode in a topologically selective Peierls transition in interacting one-dimensional con- protected edge channel,” Science 364, 1255 (2019). ductors with spin-orbit interaction,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 045127 140G.-H. Lee, K.-F. Huang, D. K. Efetov, D. S. Wei, S. Hart, T. (2010). Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A.Yacoby, and P. Kim, “Inducing su- 118M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, “Indirect Exchange Coupling perconducting correlation in quantum Hall edge states,” Nature of Nuclear Magnetic Moments by Conduction Electrons,” Phys. Phys. 13, 693 (2017). Rev. 96, 99 (1954). 141D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, and K. Shtengel, “Exotic non-Abelian 119T. Kasuya, “A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Antiferromag- anyons from conventional fractional quantum Hall states,” Nat. netism on Zener’s Model,” Progr. Theoret. Phys. 16, 45 (1956). Commun. 4, 1348 (2013). 120K. Yosida, “Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn Alloys,” Phys. Rev. 142N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, G. Refael, and A. Stern, “Fractionalizing 106, 893 (1957). Majorana Fermions: Non-Abelian Statistics on the Edges of 121X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, “Topological insulators and super- Abelian Quantum Hall States,” Phys. Rev. X 2, 041002 (2012). conductors,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011). 143X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, “Chiral topological 122J. K. Asb´oth, L. Oroszl´any, and A. P´alyi, A Short Course superconductor from the quantum Hall state,” Phys. Rev. B on Topological Insulators, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 82, 184516 (2010). 2016). 144S. Hart, H. Ren, T. Wagner, P. Leubner, M. M¨uhlbauer, C. 123Y. Ando, “Topological Insulator Materials,” J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Br¨une, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, and A. Yacoby, “In- 82, 102001 (2013). duced superconductivity in the quantum spin Hall edge,” Nature 124M. Cheng, “Superconducting proximity effect on the edge of Phys. 10, 638 (2014). fractional topological insulators,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 195126 145F. Amet, C. T. Ke, I. V. Borzenets, J. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. (2012). Taniguchi, R. S. Deacon, M. Yamamoto, Y. Bomze, S. Tarucha, 125J. Motruk, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and F. Pollmann, “Topo- and G. Finkelstein, “Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime,” logical phases in gapped edges of fractionalized systems,” Phys. Science 352, 966 (2016). Rev. B 88, 085115 (2013). 146A. W. Draelos, M. T. Wei, A. Seredinski, C. T. Ke, Y. Mehta, 126J. Klinovaja, A. Yacoby, and D. Loss, “Kramers pairs of Majo- R. Chamberlain, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Yamamoto, S. rana fermions and parafermions in fractional topological insula- Tarucha, I. V. Borzenets, F. Amet, and G. Finkelstein, “In- tors,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 155447 (2014). vestigation of Supercurrent in the Quantum Hall Regime in 127J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, “Fractional charge and spin states in Graphene Josephson Junctions,” J. Low Temp. Phys. 191, 288 topological insulator constrictions,” Phys. Rev. B 92, 121410(R) (2018). (2015). 147L. Zhao, E. G. Arnault, A. Bondarev, A. Seredinski, T. F. Q. 128C. Schrade, A. A. Zyuzin, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Larson, A. W. Draelos, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. “Proximity-Induced π Josephson Junctions in Topological In- Amet, H. U. Baranger, and G. Finkelstein, “Interference of chi- sulators and Kramers Pairs of Majorana Fermions,” Phys. Rev. ral Andreev edge states,” Nat. Phys. 16, 862 (2020). Lett. 115, 237001 (2015). 148O.¨ G¨ul, Y. Ronen, S. Y. Lee, H. Shapourian, J. Zauberman, 129J. Li, W. Pan, B. A. Bernevig, and R. M. Lutchyn, “Detection Y. H. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, A. Ya- of Majorana Kramers Pairs Using a Quantum Point Contact,” coby, and P. Kim, “Induced superconductivity in the fractional Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 046804 (2016). quantum Hall edge,” arXiv:2009.07836. 21

149J. Alicea and P. Fendley, “Topological Phases with studies of the Majorana atomic chain platform,” Nat. Phys. 13, Parafermions: Theory and Blueprints,” Annu. Rev. Con- 286 (2016). dens. Matter Phys. 7, 119 (2016). 173M. Ruby, B. W. Heinrich, Y. Peng, F. von Oppen, and K. J. 150J. Alicea and A. Stern, “Designer non-Abelian anyon platforms: Franke, “Exploring a Proximity-Coupled Co Chain on Pb(110) from Majorana to Fibonacci,” Phys. Scr. 2015, 014006 (2015). as a Possible Majorana Platform,” Nano Lett. 17, 4473 (2017). 151T. L. Schmidt, “Bosonization for fermions and parafermions,” 174S. Jeon, Y. Xie, J. Li, Z. Wang, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yaz- Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 229, 621 (2020). dani, “Distinguishing a Majorana zero mode using spin-resolved 152F. Hassler and D. Schuricht, “Strongly interacting Majorana measurements,” Science 358, 772 (2017). modes in an array of Josephson junctions,” New J. Phys. 14, 175H. Kim, A. Palacio-Morales, T. Posske, L. Rozsa, K. Palotas, 125018 (2012). L. Szunyogh, M. Thorwart, and R. Wiesendanger, “Toward tai- 153B. M. Terhal, F. Hassler, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “From Ma- loring Majorana bound states in artificially constructed mag- jorana fermions to topological order,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, netic atom chains on elemental superconductors,” Sci. Adv. 4, 260504 (2012). eaar5251 (2018). 154G. Kells, V. Lahtinen, and J. Vala, “Kitaev spin models 176S. Nakosai, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, “Two-dimensional p- from topological nanowire networks,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 075122 wave superconducting states with magnetic moments on a con- (2014). ventional s-wave superconductor,” Phys. Rev. B 88, 180503(R) 155A. Rahmani, X. Zhu, M. Franz, and I. Affleck, “Emergent Su- (2013). persymmetry from Strongly Interacting Majorana Zero Modes,” 177K. P¨oyh¨onen, A. Weststr¨om, S. S. Pershoguba, T. Ojanen, and Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 166401 (2015). A. V. Balatsky, “Skyrmion-induced bound states in a p-wave 156C.-K. Chiu, D. I. Pikulin, and M. Franz, “Strongly interacting superconductor,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 214509 (2016). Majorana fermions,” Phys. Rev. B 91, 165402 (2015). 178G. Yang, P. Stano, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, “Majorana bound 157A. Chew, A. Essin, and J. Alicea, “Approximating the Sachdev- states in magnetic skyrmions,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 224505 (2016). Ye-Kitaev model with Majorana wires,”, Phys. Rev. B 96, 179U. G¨ung¨ord¨u, S. Sandhoefner, and A. A. Kovalev, “Stabi- 121119(R) (2017). lization and control of Majorana bound states with elongated 158A. Rahmani and M. Franz, “Interacting Majorana fermions,” skyrmions,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 115136 (2018). Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 084501 (2019). 180M. Garnier, A. Mesaros, and P. Simon, “Topological super- 159L. Yu, “Bound state in superconductors with paramagnetic im- conductivity with deformable magnetic skyrmions,” Commun. purities,” Acta Phys. Sin. 21, 75 (1965). Phys. 2, 126 (2019). 160H. Shiba, “Classical Spins in Superconductors,” Prog. Theor. 181D. Steffensen, B. M. Andersen, and P. Kotetes, “Majorana Zero Phys. 40, 435 (1968). Modes in Magnetic Texture Vortices,” arXiv:2008.10626. 161A. I. Rusinov, “On the Theory of Gapless Superconductivity in 182S. Rex, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, “Majorana modes Alloys Containing Paramagnetic Impurities,” Sov. Phys. JETP in emergent-wire phases of helical and cycloidal magnet- 29, 1101 (1969). superconductor hybrids,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 224501 (2020). 162J. Li, H. Chen, I. K. Drozdov, A. Yazdani, B. A. Bernevig, and 183A. Kubetzka, J. M. B¨urger, R. Wiesendanger, and K. von A. H. MacDonald, “Topological superconductivity induced by Bergmann, “Towards skyrmion-superconductor hybrid sys- ferromagnetic metal chains,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 235433 (2014). tems,” Phys. Rev. Materials 4, 081401(R) (2020). 163F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, “Unconventional 184E. Mascot, J. Bedow, M. Graham, S. Rachel, and D. K. topological phase transitions in helical Shiba chains,” Phys. Rev. Morr, “Topological Superconductivity in Skyrmion Lattices,” B 89, 180505(R) (2014). arXiv:2005.00027. 164A. Heimes, P. Kotetes, and G. Sch¨on, “Majorana fermions from 185N. Mohanta, S. Okamoto, and E. Dagotto, “Skyrmion Con- Shiba states in an antiferromagnetic chain on top of a supercon- trol of Majorana States in Planar Josephson Junctions,” ductor,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 060507(R) (2014). arXiv:2012.13502. 165K. P¨oyh¨onen, A. Weststr¨om, J. R¨ontynen, and T. Ojanen, “Ma- 186S. A. D´ıaz, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, and S. Hoffman, “Majorana jorana states in helical Shiba chains and ladders,” Phys. Rev. B Bound States Induced by Antiferromagnetic Skyrmion Tex- 89, 115109 (2014). tures,” arXiv:2102.03423. 166S. Hoffman, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, “Topological phases of 187F. Harper, R. Roy, M. S. Rudner, and S. L. Sondhi, “Topol- inhomogeneous superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 165418 ogy and Broken Symmetry in Floquet Systems,” Annu. Rev. (2016). Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 345 (2020). 167G. M. Andolina and P. Simon, “Topological properties of chains 188M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, “Band structure engineer- of magnetic impurities on a superconducting substrate: Inter- ing and non-equilibrium dynamics in Floquet topological insu- play between the Shiba band and ferromagnetic wire limits,” lators,” Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 229 (2020). Phys. Rev. B 96, 235411 (2017). 189A. Kundu and B. Seradjeh, “Transport Signatures of Floquet 168A. Theiler, K. Bj¨ornson, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, “Majorana Majorana Fermions in Driven Topological Superconductors,” bound state localization and energy oscillations for magnetic Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 136402 (2013). impurity chains on conventional superconductors,” Phys. Rev. 190A. A. Reynoso and D. Frustaglia, “Unpaired Floquet Majorana B 100, 214504 (2019). fermions without magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. B 87, 115420 169S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, J. Li, H. Chen, I. K. Jeon, J. Seo, (2013). A. H. MacDonald, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, “Observa- 191M. Thakurathi, A. A. Patel, D. Sen, and A. Dutta, “Floquet tion of Majorana fermions in ferromagnetic atomic chains on a generation of Majorana end modes and topological invariants,” superconductor,” Science 346, 602 (2014). Phys. Rev. B 88, 155133 (2013). 170M. Ruby, F. Pientka, Y. Peng, F. von Oppen, B. W. Hein- 192M. Thakurathi, K. Sengupta, and D. Sen, “Majorana edge rich, and K. J. Franke, “End States and Subgap Structure in modes in the Kitaev model,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 235434 (2014). Proximity-Coupled Chains of Magnetic Adatoms,” Phys. Rev. 193M. Benito, A. G´omez-Le´on, V. M. Bastidas, T. Brandes, and Lett. 115, 197204 (2015). G. Platero, “Floquet engineering of long-range p-wave super- 171R. Pawlak, M. Kisiel, J. Klinovaja, T. Meier, S. Kawai, T. conductivity,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 205127 (2014). Glatzel, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, “Probing atomic structure and 194V. Dal Lago, M. Atala, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, “Floquet topo- Majorana wavefunctions in mono-atomic Fe chains on supercon- logical transitions in a driven one-dimensional topological insu- ducting Pb surface,” npj Quantum Inf. 2, 16035 (2016). lator,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 023624 (2015). 172B. E. Feldman, M. T. Randeria, J. Li, S. Jeon, Y. Xie, Z. Wang, 195M. Thakurathi, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Floquet Majorana I. K. Drozdov, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, “High-resolution fermions and parafermions in driven Rashba nanowires,” Phys. 22

Rev. B 95, 155407 (2017). in a Quantum Wire on an Unconventional Superconductor,” 196D. T. Liu, J. Shabani, and A. Mitra, “Floquet Majorana zero Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 117002 (2013). and π modes in planar Josephson junctions,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 218A. Keselman, L. Fu, A. Stern, and E. Berg, “Inducing Time- 094303 (2019). Reversal-Invariant Topological Superconductivity and Fermion 197K. Plekhanov, M. Thakurathi, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Flo- Parity Pumping in Quantum Wires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, quet second-order topological superconductor driven via ferro- 116402 (2013). magnetic resonance,” Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032013(R) (2019). 219J. Klinovaja and D. Loss, “Time-reversal invariant parafermions 198T. O. Wehling, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and A. V. Balatsky, “Dirac in interacting Rashba nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 045118 materials,” Adv. Phys. 63, 1 (2014). (2014). 199Y. Ando and L. Fu, “Topological Crystalline Insulators and 220A. Haim, A. Keselman, E. Berg, and Y. Oreg, “Time-reversal- Topological Superconductors: From Concepts to Materials,” invariant topological superconductivity induced by repulsive in- Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 361 (2015). teractions in quantum wires,” Phys. Rev. B 89, 220504(R) 200Y. Tanaka and S. Kashiwaya, “Theory of Tunneling Spec- (2014). troscopy of d-Wave Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3451 221E. Gaidamauskas, J. Paaske, and K. Flensberg, “Majo- (1995). rana Bound States in Two-Channel Time-Reversal-Symmetric 201S. Sasaki, M. Kriener, K. Segawa, K. Yada, Y. Tanaka, M. Sato, Nanowire Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 126402 (2014). 222 and Y. Ando, “Topological Superconductivity in CuxBi2Se3,” E. Dumitrescu, J. D. Sau, and S. Tewari, “Magnetic field re- Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 217001 (2011). sponse and chiral symmetry of time-reversal-invariant topolog- 202J. Linder, Y. Tanaka, T. Yokoyama, A. Sudbø, and N. Nagaosa, ical superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 245438 (2014). “Unconventional Superconductivity on a Topological Insulator,” 223A. Haim, K. W¨olms, E. Berg, Y. Oreg, and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 067001 (2010). “Interaction-driven topological superconductivity in one dimen- 203C.-R. Hu, “Midgap surface states as a novel signature for sion,” Phys. Rev. B 94, 115124 (2016). 224 d 2 − 2 -wave superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1526 C. Schrade, M. Thakurathi, C. Reeg, S. Hoffman, J. Klinovaja, xa xb (1994). and D. Loss, “Low-field topological threshold in Majorana dou- 96 204K. Sengupta, I. Zuti´c,ˇ H.-J. Kwon, V. M. Yakovenko, and S. Das ble nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B , 035306 (2017). 225 Sarma, “Midgap edge states and pairing symmetry of quasi-one- M. Thakurathi, P. Simon, I. Mandal, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, dimensional organic superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B 63, 144531 “Majorana Kramers pairs in Rashba double nanowires with in- 97 (2001). teractions and disorder,” Phys. Rev. B , 045415 (2018). 226 205M. Alidoust, C. Shen, and I. Zuti´c,ˇ “Cubic spin-orbit coupling A. A. Aligia and L. Arrachea, “Entangled end states with frac- and anomalous Josephson effect in planar junctions,” Phys. Rev. tionalized spin projection in a time-reversal-invariant topologi- 98 B 103, L060503 (2021). cal superconducting wire,” Phys. Rev. B , 174507 (2018). 227 206J. Linder and A. V. Balatsky, “Odd-frequency superconductiv- W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, “Quan- 357 ity,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045005 (2019). tized electric multipole insulators,” Science , 61 (2017). 228 207Y. Tanaka, A. A. Golubov, S. Kashiwaya, and M. Ueda, Y. Peng, Y. Bao, and F. von Oppen, “Boundary Green functions 95 “Anomalous Josephson Effect between Even- and Odd- of topological insulators and superconductors,” Phys. Rev.B , Frequency Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 037005 235143 (2017). 229 (2007). S. Imhof, C. Berger, F. Bayer, H. Brehm, L. Molenkamp, T. 208Y. Tanaka and A. A. Golubov, “Theory of the Proximity Effect Kiessling, F. Schindler, C. H. Lee, M. Greiter, T. Neupert, and in Junctions with Unconventional Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. R. Thomale, “Topolectrical-circuit realization of topological cor- 14 Lett. 98, 037003 (2007). ner modes,” Nat. Phys. , 925 (2018). 230 209C. Triola, J. Cayao, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, “The Role of M. Geier, L. Trifunovic, M. Hoskam, and P. W. Brouwer, Odd-Frequency Pairing in Multiband Superconductors,” Ann. “Second-order topological insulators and superconductors with 97 Phys. 532, 1900298 (2020). an order-two crystalline symmetry,” Phys. Rev. B , 205135 210Y. Tanaka, M. Sato, and N. Nagaosa, “Symmetry and Topology (2018). 231 in Superconductors—Odd-Frequency Pairing and Edge States,” F. Schindler, “Dirac equation perspective on higher-order topo- 128 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 011013 (2012). logical insulators,” J. Appl. Phys. , 221102 (2020). 232 211J. Cayao and A. M. Black-Schaffer, “Odd-frequency supercon- Y.-J. Wu, J. Hou, Y.-M. Li, X.-W. Luo, X. Shi, and C. Zhang, ducting pairing in junctions with Rashba spin-orbit coupling,” “In-Plane Zeeman-Field-Induced Majorana Corner and Hinge Phys. Rev. B 98, 075425 (2018). Modes in an s-Wave Superconductor Heterostructure,” Phys. 124 212C. Fleckenstein, N. Traverso Ziani, and B. Trauzettel, “Conduc- Rev. Lett. , 227001 (2020). 233 tance signatures of odd-frequency superconductivity in quantum Y. Wang, M. Lin, and T. L. Hughes, “Weak-pairing higher order 98 spin Hall systems using a quantum point contact,” Phys. Rev. topological superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B , 165144 (2018). 234 B 97, 134523 (2018). T. Liu, J. J. He, and F. Nori, “Majorana corner states in 213J. A. Krieger, A. Pertsova, S. R. Giblin, M. D¨obeli, T. Prokscha, a two-dimensional magnetic topological insulator on a high- 98 C. W. Schneider, A. Suter, T. Hesjedal, A. V. Balatsky, and temperature superconductor,” Phys. Rev. B , 245413 (2018). 235 Z. Salman, “Proximity-Induced Odd-Frequency Superconduc- S. Franca, D. V. Efremov, and I. C. Fulga, “Phase-tunable 100 tivity in a Topological Insulator,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 026802 second-order topological superconductor,” Phys. Rev. B , (2020). 075415 (2019). 236 214H. Ebisu, B. Lu, J. Klinovaja, and Y. Tanaka, “Theory of time- Z. Yan, “Majorana corner and hinge modes in second-order reversal topological superconductivity in double Rashba wires: topological insulator/superconductor heterostructures,” Phys. 100 symmetries of Cooper pairs and Andreev bound states,” Prog. Rev. B , 205406 (2019). 237 Theor. Exp. Phys. 2016, 083I01 (2016). R.-X. Zhang, W. S. Cole, X. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, “Higher- 215C. L. M. Wong and K. T. Law, “Majorana Kramers doublets Order Topology and Nodal Topological Superconductivity in Fe(Se,Te) Heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 167001 in dx2−y2 -wave superconductors with Rashba spin-orbit cou- pling,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 184516 (2012). (2019). 238 216F. Zhang, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, “Time-Reversal-Invariant X. Zhu, “Second-Order Topological Superconductors with 122 Topological Superconductivity and Majorana Kramers Pairs,” Mixed Pairing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , 236401 (2019). 239 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 056402 (2013). K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Majorana and 217S. Nakosai, J. C. Budich, Y. Tanaka, B. Trauzettel, and N. Na- parafermion corner states from two coupled sheets of bilayer 2 gaosa, “Majorana Bound States and Nonlocal Spin Correlations graphene,” Phys. Rev. Research , 013330 (2020). 23

240 262 X. Wu, X. Liu, R. Thomale, and C.-X. Liu, “High-Tc Su- K. Aggarwal, A. Hofmann, D. Jirovec, I. Prieto, A. Sammak, perconductor Fe(Se,Te) Monolayer: an Intrinsic, Scalable and M. Botifoll, S. Mart´ı-S´anchez, M. Veldhorst, J. Arbiol, G. Scap- Electrically-tunable Majorana Platform,” arXiv:1905.10648. pucci, J. Danon, and G. Katsaros, “Enhancement of proximity- 241S.-B. Zhang, A. Calzona, and B. Trauzettel, “All-electrically induced superconductivity in a planar Ge hole gas,” Phys. Rev. tunable networks of Majorana bound states,” Phys. Rev. B 102, Research 3, L022005 (2021). 100503(R) (2020). 263C. Reeg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Finite-size effects in a 242K. Laubscher, D. Chughtai, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Kramers nanowire strongly coupled to a thin superconducting shell,” pairs of Majorana corner states in a topological insulator bi- Phys. Rev. B 96, 125426 (2017). layer,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 195401 (2020). 264C. Reeg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Metallization of a Rashba 243Y. Volpez, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Second-Order Topologi- wire by a superconducting layer in the strong-proximity regime,” cal Superconductivity in π-Junction Rashba Layers,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. B 97, 165425 (2018). Lett. 122, 126402 (2019). 265B. D. Woods, S. Das Sarma, and T. D. Stanescu, “Elec- 244V. T. Phong, N. R. Walet, and F. Guinea, “Majorana zero tronic structure of full-shell InAs/Al hybrid semiconductor- modes in a two-dimensional p-wave superconductor,” Phys. Rev. superconductor nanowires: Spin-orbit coupling and topological B 96, 060505(R) (2017). phase space,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 161118(R) (2019). 245E. Khalaf, “Higher-order topological insulators and supercon- 266G. W. Winkler, A. E. Antipov, B. van Heck, A. A. Soluyanov, ductors protected by inversion symmetry,” Phys. Rev. B 97, L. I. Glazman, M. Wimmer, and R. M. Lutchyn, “Unified nu- 205136 (2018). merical approach to topological semiconductor-superconductor 246X. Zhu, “Tunable Majorana corner states in a two-dimensional heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 245408 (2019). second-order topological superconductor induced by magnetic 267T. Kiendl, F. von Oppen, and P. W. Brouwer, “Proximity- fields,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 205134 (2018). induced gap in nanowires with a thin superconducting shell,” 247K. Laubscher, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Fractional topological Phys. Rev. B 100, 035426 (2019). superconductivity and parafermion corner states,” Phys. Rev. 268K. T. Law and Patrick A. Lee, “Robustness of Majorana fermion Research 1, 032017(R) (2019). induced fractional Josephson effect in multichannel supercon- 248J. Ahn and B.-J. Yang, “Higher-order topological supercon- ducting wires,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 081304(R) (2011). ductivity of spin-polarized fermions,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 269L. Jiang, D. Pekker, J. Alicea, G. Refael, Y. Oreg, and F. 012060(R) (2020). von Oppen, “Unconventional Josephson Signatures of Majorana 249B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, “Quantum Spin Bound States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 236401 (2011). Hall Effect and Topological Phase Transition in HgTe Quantum 270P. San-Jose, E. Prada, and R. Aguado, “ac Josephson Effect Wells,” Science 314, 1757 (2006). in Finite-Length Nanowire Junctions with Majorana Modes,” 250Y. Volpez, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Rashba sandwiches with Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 257001 (2012). topological superconducting phases,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 195421 271P. A. Ioselevich and M. V. Feigel’man, “Anomalous Josephson (2018). Current via Majorana Bound States in Topological Insulators,” 251C. J. Bolech and E. Demler, “Observing Majorana bound States Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 077003 (2011). in p-Wave Superconductors Using Noise Measurements in Tun- 272D. M. Badiane, M. Houzet, and J. S. Meyer, “Nonequilibrium neling Experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 237002 (2007). Josephson Effect through Helical Edge States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 252J. Nilsson, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, “Splitting 107, 177002 (2011). of a Cooper Pair by a Pair of Majorana Bound States,” Phys. 273F. Dom´ınguez, F. Hassler, and G. Platero, “Dynamical detec- Rev. Lett. 101, 120403 (2008). tion of Majorana fermions in current-biased nanowires,” Phys. 253K. T. Law, P. A. Lee, and T. K. Ng, “Majorana Fermion Induced Rev. B 86, 140503(R) (2012). Resonant Andreev Reflection,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 237001 274D. I. Pikulin and Y. V. Nazarov, “Phenomenology and dynamics (2009). of a Majorana Josephson junction,” Phys. Rev. B 86, 140504(R) 254K. Flensberg, “Tunneling characteristics of a chain of Majorana (2012). bound states,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 180516(R) (2010). 275M. Trif and Y. Tserkovnyak, “Resonantly Tunable Majorana 255M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, J. P. Dahlhaus, and C. W. J. Polariton in a Microwave Cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 257002 Beenakker, “Quantum point contact as a probe of a topological (2012). superconductor,” New J. Phys. 13, 053016 (2011). 276T. L. Schmidt, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, “Majorana 256L. Fidkowski, J. Alicea, N. H. Lindner, R. M. Lutchyn, and Qubit Rotations in Microwave Cavities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, M. P. A. Fisher, “Universal transport signatures of Majorana 107006 (2013). fermions in superconductor-Luttinger liquid junctions,” Phys. 277O. Dmytruk, M. Trif, and P. Simon, “Cavity quantum electro- Rev. B 85, 245121 (2012). dynamics with mesoscopic topological superconductors,” Phys. 257S. Frolov, “Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majo- Rev. B 92, 245432 (2015). rana fermions,” Nature 592, 350 (2021). 278A. Cottet, M. C. Dartiailh, M. M. Desjardins, T. Cubaynes, 258H. J. Suominen, M. Kjaergaard, A. R. Hamilton, J. Shabani, L. C. Contamin, M. Delbecq, J. J. Viennot, L. E. Bruhat, B. C. J. Palmstrøm, C. M. Marcus, and F. Nichele, “Zero-Energy Dou¸cot, and T. Kontos, “Cavity QED with hybrid nanocircuits: Modes from Coalescing Andreev States in a Two-Dimensional from atomic-like physics to condensed matter phenomena,” J. Semiconductor-Superconductor Hybrid Platform,” Phys. Rev. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 433002 (2017). Lett. 119, 176805 (2017). 279T. Gulden, M. Janas, Y. Wang, and A. Kamenev, “Universal 259N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, M. Kouwenhoven, Finite-Size Scaling around Topological Quantum Phase Transi- D. Sabbagh, L. Yeoh, R. Li, M. L. V. Tagliaferri, M. Virgilio, tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 026402 (2016). G. Capellini, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, “Gate-controlled 280P. Szumniak, D. Chevallier, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Spin and quantum dots and superconductivity in planar germanium,” charge signatures of topological superconductivity in Rashba Nat. Commun. 9, 2835 (2018). nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 041401(R) (2017). 260E. Bakkers, “Bottom-up grown nanowire quantum devices,” 281D. Chevallier, P. Szumniak, S. Hoffman, D. Loss, and J. Klino- MRS Bulletin 44, 403 (2019). vaja, “Topological phase detection in Rashba nanowires with a 261J. Ridderbos, M. Brauns, F. K. de Vries, J. Shen, A. Li, S. quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 045404 (2018). K¨olling, M. A. Verheijen, A. Brinkman, W. G. van der Wiel, 282M. Serina, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, “Boundary spin polariza- E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and F. A. Zwanenburg, “Hard Supercon- tion as a robust signature of a topological phase transition in ducting Gap and Diffusion-Induced Superconductors in Ge–Si Majorana nanowires,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 035419 (2018). Nanowires,” Nano Lett. 20, 122 (2020). 283F. Yang, S.-J. Jiang, and F. Zhou, “Robust cusps near topolog- 24

ical phase transitions: Signatures of Majorana fermions and in- 035120 (2011). teractions with fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. B 100, 054508 (2019). 292T. Hyart, B. van Heck, I. C. Fulga, M. Burrello, A. R. 284S. Tamura, S. Hoshino, and Y. Tanaka, “Odd-frequency pairs in Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, “Flux-controlled quantum chiral symmetric systems: Spectral bulk-boundary correspon- computation with Majorana fermions,” Phys. Rev. B 88, 035121 dence and topological criticality,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 184512 (2013). (2019). 293T. Karzig, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and M. H. Freedman, “Universal 285D. Sticlet, C. P. Moca, and B. D´ora, “All-electrical spec- Geometric Path to a Robust Majorana Magic Gate,” Phys. Rev. troscopy of topological phases in semiconductor-superconductor X 6, 031019 (2016). heterostructures,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 075437 (2020). 294D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham, J. 286M. Mashkoori, S. Pradhan, K. Bj¨ornson, J. Fransson, and A. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M. Marcus, K. M. Black-Schaffer, “Identification of topological superconduc- Flensberg, and J. Alicea, “Milestones Toward Majorana-Based tivity in magnetic impurity systems using bulk spin polariza- Quantum Computing,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 031016 (2016). tion,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 104501 (2020). 295B. I. Halperin, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, G. Refael, J. Alicea, and F. 287C.-K. Chiu, M. M. Vazifeh, and M. Franz, “Majorana fermion von Oppen, “Adiabatic manipulations of Majorana fermions in exchange in strictly one-dimensional structures,” Europhys. a three-dimensional network of quantum wires,” Phys. Rev. B Lett. 110, 10001 (2015). 85, 144501 (2012). 288P. San-Jose, J. Cayao, E. Prada, and R. Aguado, “Majorana 296P. Bonderson, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, “Measurement- bound states from exceptional points in non-topological super- Only Topological Quantum Computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. conductors,” Sci. Rep. 6, 21427 (2016). 101, 010501 (2008). 289J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, 297P. Bonderson, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, “Measurement-only “Non-Abelian statistics and topological quantum information topological quantum computation via anyonic interferometry,” processing in 1D wire networks,” Nature Phys. 7, 412 (2011). Ann. Phys. (NY) 324, 787 (2009). 290J. D. Sau, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, “Universal quantum 298T. Karzig, C. Knapp, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Bonderson, M. B. computation in a semiconductor quantum wire network,” Phys. Hastings, C. Nayak, J. Alicea, K. Flensberg, S. Plugge, Y. Rev. A 82, 052322 (2010). Oreg, C. M. Marcus, and M. H. Freedman, “Scalable designs 291D. J. Clarke, J. D. Sau, and S. Tewari, “Majorana fermion ex- for quasiparticle-poisoning-protected topological quantum com- change in quasi-one-dimensional networks,” Phys. Rev. B 84, putation with Majorana zero modes,” Phys. Rev. B 95, 235305 (2017).