$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Figure 2a shows the scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the device 1. A quantum circuit with 20 electrical wires can be seen. The design allows the measurement of one or series of JJs on a chip in one fridge cool-down. The SEM image of one junction on the circuit of Device 2, that was fabricated by e-beam lithography, is shown in Figure 2b. The distance between two Nb films in each side of the Nb-In0.75Ga0.25As-Nb junction is L= 550 nm at the shortest path. Figure 2c shows the SEM image of one junction of Device 1- which is photolithographically fabricated. Here, the two Nb electrodes are separated by a distance of L= 850 nm.
The Blonder–Tinkham–Klapwijk (BTK) theory is an acceptable model to describe the quantum transport in hybrid S-Sm junctions27. The influence of the superconductor order parameters in semiconducting 2DEG results in a nonlinear differential conductance. At low temperatures, there are two possible reflection mechanisms at the Nb-In0.75Ga0.25As interfaces: normal reflection which causes no charge transmission through the interface and the Andreev reflections, which transmits two charge quanta 2e, with the retroreflection of a hole23,24,25. As the superconducting condensate consists of spin singlet Cooper pairs, the reflected hole has the opposite spin as the incoming electron. The cartoon diagram of these two processes is shown in Figure 3a,b, respectively28.
If the interface between the Nb and In0.75Ga0.25As contact is not transparent, there is coexistence of both normal and Andreev reflected electrons. Thus, the resistance increases and a zero-bias peak within the gap is formed. Such an in-gap peak in the dV/dI (VSD) is not observed in our junctions. However, for a homogeneous and barrier free (Z=0) interface between the Nb film and In0.75Ga0.25As contact, all incident electrons undergo Andreev reflection. In such condition, an excess current Iexc is formed in the junction due to correlations of electron- and hole-like quasiparticles. Therefore, the differential resistance within the gap is reduced and a flat U-shape dip in dV/dI (VSD) is observed. According to BTK model, it can be inferred that no tunneling barrier formed at the Nb-In0.75Ga0.25As interfaces of both devices. Therefore, the barrier strength is estimated to be Z < 0.2 in our junctions23,24,25.
Because of the proximity effect, induced gap of approximately Δind ≈ 100 μeV, and 650 μeV are measured in the devices 1 and 2, respectively. The temperature dependence induced superconducting gap with pronounced subharmonic energy gap structures (SGS) peaks and dips for device 1 are shown in Figure 4a. The multiple Andreev reflections (MAR) at the interfaces of the Nb-In0.75Ga0.25As junction result in the observation of SGS in the differential conductance. At the lowest measured temperature T= 50 mK (red curve), the SGS appears with three peaks (named as P1, P2 and P3) and three dips (named as d1, d2 and d3). The temperature evolution of the peaks and dips due to the suppression of the induced superconductivity with temperature increase are shown in Figure 4b. The SGS peak positions obey the expression V = 2Δ/ne (Δ is the Nb gap energy, n = 1, 2, 3, … is an integer, and e is the electron charge): P1, P2, P3 and P4 positions approximately correspond to 2Δ/3e, 2Δ/4e, 2Δ/6e and the induced gap edge but the dip positions do not follow the expression. All features are significantly temperature dependent, and the strongest (weakest) SGS peaks (dips) are observed at T= 50 mK (800 mK). It is worth mentioning that even at temperatures above T= 500 mK where the supercurrent can no longer be seen, the SGS is observed but it disappears at T> 800 mK- when induced superconductivity is washed out.
For this device with array of eight 2D JJs, in 4 out of 7 junctions, a hard-induced superconducting gap in In0.75Ga0.25As 2DEG was found23,24. However, three junctions showed a soft gap signature and neither a hard- nor a soft-gap structure was observed for the last junction because of a wire contact failure between the device and pad.
The superconducting gap as a function of applied VSD voltage and temperature of device 2 is shown in Figure 5a. This device was measured at a 3He cryostat with base temperature of T= 280 mK. The temperature and magnetic field dependences transport measurements of device 2 do not show any sign of in-gap or sub-gap oscillations which are observed for device 1 (see Figure 5a, b). This could be due to the arrow-shaped geometry of the junction which may cause destructive interference of the MAR. Such features might appear in the differential conductance if the device is measured at much lower temperatures (dilution fridge base temperature). The induced gap is suppressed and moved toward zero voltage bias and their amplitudes diminish with further increasing of the applied temperature and magnetic field.

Figure 1. In0.75Ga0.25As/In0.75Al0.25As/GaAs heterostructure. The schematic view of the heterojunction where an In0.75Ga0.25As quantum well with 30 nm thickness is formed ⁓120 nm below the wafer surface. Nb was used as the superconducting contacts (shown in black) to form a hybrid and ballistic Nb–In0.75Ga0.25As 2DEG–Nb Josephson junction. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: On-chip hybrid superconducting-semiconducting quantum circuits. (a) SEM image of the QICs device showing a top view of a quantum circuit with 20 control wires, and 8 planar and symmetric JJs on a chip. The SEM image of Nb-In0.75Ga0.25As-Nb JJs with an In0.75Ga0.25As 2DEG gap of length L= 550 nm and 850 nm for e-beam lithographically (b) and photolithographically (c) fabricated junctions. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Normal and Andreev Reflections in hybrid superconducting-semiconducting junctions. (a) Specular quasiparticle reflection with no charge transmission through the interface. (b) Andreev reflection whereas the incoming electron is reflected as a hole in the opposite spin sub-band and transfer 2e charge into superconducting electrode. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Induced superconductivity and SGS in In0.75Ga0.25As quantum wells in photolithographically fabricated junction. (a) Temperature dependence induced superconducting gap with pronounced SGS peaks due to multiple Andreev reflections. The SGS and the induced gap edge peaks, are marked by P1 to P4 while the SGS dips are marked by d1 to d3. (b) The SGS peaks and dips shown in (a) as a function of temperature. SGS are suppressed significantly at T> 400 mK leading to a shift toward zero bias. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5. The temperature and magnetic field dependence of induced superconductivity in e-beam lithographically fabricated junctions. (a) Induced superconducting gap vs. applied source-drain voltage VSD at temperatures between 300 mK and 1.5 K. The curves are vertically offset for clarity. (b) Color-coded differential resistance as a function of VSD and perpendicular magnetic field at T= 300 mK. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.