Abstract
A magnetic impurity coupled to a superconductor gives rise to a Yu–Shiba–Rusinov (YSR) state inside the superconducting energy gap. With increasing exchange coupling the excitation energy of this state eventually crosses zero and the system switches to a YSR ground state with bound quasiparticles screening the impurity spin by ħ/2. Here we explore indium arsenide (InAs) nanowire double quantum dots tunnel coupled to a superconductor and demonstrate YSR screening of spin1/2 and spin1 states. Gating the double dot through nine different charge states, we show that the honeycomb pattern of zerobias conductance peaks, archetypal of double dots coupled to normal leads, is replaced by lines of zeroenergy YSR states. These enclose regions of YSRscreened dot spins displaying distinctive spectral features, and their characteristic shape and topology change markedly with tunnel coupling strengths. We find excellent agreement with a simple zerobandwidth approximation, and with numerical renormalization group calculations for the twoorbital Anderson model.
Introduction
Yu–Shiba–Rusinov (YSR) states^{1,2,3} can be imaged in a direct manner by scanningtunneling spectrocopy of magnetic adatoms on the surface of a superconductor^{4}. Using superconducting tips, highresolution bias spectroscopy of multiple subgap peaks reveals an impressive amount of atomistic details like higher angular momentum scattering channels, crystalfield splitting and magnetic anisotropy^{4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11}. In general, however, it can be an arduous task to model the complex pattern of subgap states^{6,7,9}, let alone to calculate their precise influence on the conductance^{10}.
In contrast, the “atomic physics” of Coulomb blockaded quantum dots (QDs) is simple. Changing the gate voltage, subsequent levels are filled onebyone and the different charge states alternate in spin, or Kramers degeneracies for dots with spin–orbit coupling, between singlet and doublet. With normal metal leads, charge states with spin1/2 exhibit zerobias Kondo resonances at temperatures below the Kondo temperature, \(T \ll T_{\mathrm{K}}\), reflecting a Kondoscreened singlet ground state (GS). If the leads are superconducting with a large BCS gap, \({\mathit{\Delta }} \gg k_{\mathrm{B}}T_{\mathrm{K}}\), this resonance is quenched and the GS recovers its doublet degeneracy. The system now displays a YSR singlet excitation close to the gap edge, which can be lowered in energy by increasing the k_{B}T_{K}/Δ^{12,13,14,15,16,17}. Close to k_{B}T_{K} ≈ 0.3Δ it crosses zero and becomes the YSRscreened singlet GS^{9,11,18,19,20}, which eventually crosses over to a Kondo singlet at \(k_{\mathrm{B}}T_{\mathrm{K}} \gg {\mathit{\Delta }}\).
YSR states were first discussed in the context of gapless superconductivity arising in the presence of randomly distributed paramagnetic impurities^{1,2,3}. However, the ability to assemble spins into dimers, chains, and lattices, has recently prompted the exciting idea of engineering YSR molecules^{20,21}, YSR subgap topological superconductors and spiral magnetic states^{4,22,23,24}. QDs have the advantage of being tunable via electrical gates, and this plays an important role in recent proposals for topological superconductivity in systems of coupled QDs^{25,26,27}.
Here we utilize this electrical control to manipulate YSR states in a double quantum dot (DQD) formed in an InAs nanowire. Using multiple finger gates to tune the total DQD spin and the interdot coupling, we demonstrate control of the YSR phase diagram, including electrical tuning between YSR singlets, and a novel YSR doublet arising from the screening of an excited spin triplet.
Results
Device and model
A scanning electron micrograph of an actual device (Device A) is shown in Fig. 1a, where bottom gates are used to define a normal (N)DQDsuperconductor (S) structure^{17}. The corresponding schematic is shown in Fig. 1b, where plunger gates labeled g_{N} and g_{S} control left (QD_{N}) and right (QD_{S}) quantum dot, respectively, while an auxiliary gate, g_{d}, tunes the interdot tunneling barrier. The essential physics of this system can be understood in terms of a simple zerobandwidth (ZBW) model in which the superconductor is modeled by a single quasiparticle coupled directly to an orbital in QD_{S} via t_{S} and indirectly to QD_{N} through t_{d}. A normal metal electrode with weak coupling t_{N} and correspondingly low Kondo temperature to the left dot is used to probe the DQDS system. Figure 1c shows the corresponding energy diagram in the regime of dominating onsite charging energies. In the Supplementary Note 3 we compare this model to numerical renormalization group (NRG) calculations to establish its reliability as a quantitative tool.
In Fig. 2a, b, we reproduce the wellknown subgap state behavior for a single dot coupled to a superconductor within the ZBW model. The panels show excitation energy as a function of the dimensionless gate voltage \(\tilde n_{\mathrm{S}}\) (corresponding to the noninteracting average occupation of QD_{S}) for weak and strong t_{S}. As expected the subgap excitations cross (do not cross) zero energy for weak (strong) coupling. The GS of the system for odd occupancy is thus a doublet or a YSR singlet (screened spin)^{13,17,18}.
In Fig. 2f–i we extend the ZBW model to a DQD (finite t_{d}) and calculate stability diagrams for increasing t_{S}. For weak coupling the characteristic honeycomb pattern is observed similar to DQD in the normal state^{28,29,30}. However, as t_{S} increases, entirely new types of stability diagrams emerge. In Fig. 2g, the pattern resembles two mirrored arcs, where the lack of zeroenergy excitations as a function of \(\tilde n_{\mathrm{S}}\) for even occupation of QD_{N} is due to a doublet to singlet transition in QD_{S} (see Fig. 2a, b). Moreover, as the coupling increases even further, the GS in the \(\left( {\tilde n_{\mathrm{N}},\tilde n_{\mathrm{S}}} \right) = (11)\) region becomes a YSR doublet altering the stability diagram to vertically shaped rectangular regions.
To understand this behavior, we show the states of the system in the (11) region in Fig. 2c. Two electrons in the DQD may form either a singlet \({\cal S}_{11}\) or a triplet \({\cal T}_{11}\) state with energy splitting J_{d}. Due to the superconductor, a third state may also exist in the gap. In analogy with the QDS system, where a doublet state may be screened to a YSR singlet, the triplet state may be screened to form a YSR doublet (called \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\))^{11}. The energy of \({\cal S}_{11}\) and \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) versus coupling is plotted in Fig. 2c, and the latter eventually becomes the GS at strong coupling.
The relevant GSs and corresponding regimes with two GS transitions in the (t_{S} versus t_{d})plane of the DQDS system is shown in Fig. 2d, e. The first occurs when the system transitions from a honeycomb pattern to the case where the spin in QD_{S} is screened. The latter regime we call partly screened (PS) since only some of the charge states are affected. The second transition happens when the \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) in (11) becomes the GS. This regime we name screened (SC) since all possible screened states are GSs of the system. We emphasize that the names of these regimes do not describe the degree of screening of the individual spin states, e.g., in the screened regime the triplet giving rise to \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) is underscreened, while the doublet spin giving rise to \({\cal S}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) is completely screened (see Fig. 2d). The (t_{S}, t_{d}) position of the regime boundaries are dependent on choice of parameters, but the overall behavior stays the same. For instance, for larger U_{S}, the transitions move toward larger t_{S} as one would expect.
Measurements
With the qualitative behavior of this system in place, we explore the different regimes experimentally. The honeycomb regime is presented in the Supplementary Note 2 (Device B), while below we focus on the stronger coupled regimes. Figure 3a shows linear conductance versus plunger gates for a twoorbital DQD shell (i.e., one spindegenerate level in each dot). A pattern of two arcs is observed, resembling the PS regime. To verify that the conductance resonances originate from subgap states, gate traces for different fillings of the two dots are measured. Figure 3c–e trace out the filling of electrons in QD_{N} along the red arrows in Fig. 3a, keeping the electron number in QD_{S} constant. The subgap spectroscopy plots c,e for even filling of QD_{S} show similar behavior, differing from d with odd occupation. When fixing (sweeping) the occupation of QD_{N} (QD_{S}), the qualitative behavior is switched (Fig. 3f–h corresponding to green arrows in Fig. 3a). For even occupancy in QD_{N} (f,h) no zerobias crossing is observed, while the opposite is true for odd occupancy (g). In particular Fig. 3d, g are interesting, since they involve the (11) charge state region. In contrast to single dot systems, the singlet GS shows different behavior whether tuning the electrochemical potential of the dot close to the superconductor or the normal lead, i.e., concave and convex excitation behavior versus gate voltage in the (11) state. The experimental data clearly confirm that the resonances in the stability diagram originate from subgap excitations. The stability diagram generated by our DQDS model for realistic parameters reproducing the experimental behavior is shown in Fig. 3b, and corresponding gate traces for fixed occupations are shown in Fig. 3i–n. The qualitative agreement between theory and experiment is striking and even subtleties like the asymmetry of the subgap resonance splitting in j (see arrows) are reproduced.
The transition between different YSR states can also be driven by changing the singlettriplet (\({\cal S}_{11}\)\({\cal T}_{11}\)) splitting by tuning t_{d} (cf. Fig. 2e). In Fig. 4e–h we show calculated diagrams for t_{d} in a parameter range, where the GS in the (11) charge state transitions from \({\cal S}_{11}\) (h) to \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) (e), i.e. from doublearc, to verticallines diagrams. The corresponding measured stability diagrams for the two orbitals analyzed in Fig. 3 are shown in Fig. 4a–d, where the gate voltage between the two dots are tuned to more negative values (decreasing t_{d}). The effect of this tuning qualitatively follows the expectation of the model: a transition from \({\cal S}_{11}\) to \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) in the screened regime where all spin states are YSR screened.
The gatedispersion of subgap excitations also shows good overall correspondence between ZBW modeling and experiment. We measured the subgap spectra in the screened regime along the red and green arrows in c and a. The first case c is almost at the transition, where the singlet and doublet states are degenerate in (11). Figure 4i, j shows subgap states versus V_{gN} and V_{gS}, respectively, with a zerobias peak at V_{gS} = 2.62 V reflecting a degeneracy at this value of t_{d}. The corresponding ZBW modeling in Fig. 4k, l (for t_{d} = 0.25 meV) places the system just barely in the screened regime with a \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) (11) GS and a nearby \({\cal S}_{11}\) excitation dispersing very much like in the measurement. A \({\cal T}_{11}\) triplet state is predicted inside the gap, and should be accessible from the \({\cal D}_{{\mathrm{YSR}}}\) GS. As demonstrated in the Supplementary Note 3, this is confirmed by more accurate NRG calculations, which however reveal a strong suppression of spectral weight on this state, explaining why it may be difficult to observe in experiment. For even lower t_{d}, case a, Fig. 4m–p again show good overall correspondence between experiment and theory, except for the triplet state, which should be weak, and in this case hardly resolved within the linewidth broadening in the data. Future experiments with hard gap superconductors or improved resolution may eventually lead to capability to detect even such lowweight spectral features. A detailed discussion of nonlinear conductance and broadening of the YSR subgap spectra is provided in the Supplementary Note 4. In particular, the electron–hole (e–h) asymmetry of the subgap resonance amplitude in, e.g., Fig. 3f is due to relaxation from the subgap state to quasiparticles above the gap (i.e. in the case of no relaxation the subgap resonance amplitude is expected to be e–h symmetric).
Methods
Fabrication
The devices are made by defining bottom gate Au/Ti (12/5 nm) electrodes (pitch 55 nm) on a silicon substrate capped with 500 nm SiO_{2} followed by atomic layer deposition of 3 × 8 nm HfO_{2}. InAs nanowires (70 nm in diameter) appropriately aligned on bottom gate structures are contacted by Au/Ti (90/5 nm) normal and Al/Ti (95/5 nm) superconducting electrodes separated by ~ 350 nm^{17}. The superconducting film has a critical field of around 85 mT.
Measurements techniques
The samples are mounted in an Oxford Instruments Triton 200 dilution refrigerator with base temperature of around 30 mK and are measured with standard lockin techniques. For the data (Figs. 3 and 4) shown in the PS regime, the voltages on the gates define a double dot potential with values (V) V_{g1} = 0, V_{g2} = −1.3, V_{g3} = 2.3, V_{g4} = −0.3, V_{g5} = 2.65, V_{g6} = −0.3, and V_{g7} = 0.3. Here the gate numbers correspond to gates from left to right in Fig. 1a. Gates 3, 4, and 5 are thus the left plunger, the tunnel barrier and right plunger gates, which are tuned within some range of the values stated.
Data availability
The data presented above can be found at the following https://sid.erda.dk/public/archives/ec32617f4b179826cb9343ce46c50b11/publishedarchive.html.
References
 1.
Yu, L. Bound state in superconductors with paramagnetic impurities. Acta Phys. Sin. 21, 75–91 (1965).
 2.
Shiba, H. Classical spins in superconductors. Prog. Theor. Phys. 40, 435–451 (1968).
 3.
Rusinov, A. I. Superconductivity near a paramagnetic impurity. JETP Lett. 9, 85–87 (1969). [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 9, 146 (1968)].
 4.
Heinrich, B. W., Pascual, J. I. & Franke, K. J. Single magnetic adsorbates on swave superconductors. Prog. Surf. Sci. 93, 1–19 (2018).
 5.
Yazdani, A., Jones, B. A., Lutz, C. P., Crommie, M. F. & Eigler, D. M. Probing the local effects of magnetic impurities on superconductivity. Science 275, 1767–1770 (1997).
 6.
Ji, S.H. et al. Highresolution scanning tunneling spectroscopy of magnetic impurity induced bound states in the superconducting gap of Pb thin films. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 226801 (2008).
 7.
Ruby, M., Peng, Y., von Oppen, F., Heinrich, B. W. & Franke, K. J. Orbital picture of Yu–Shiba–Rusinov Multiplets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 186801 (2016).
 8.
Franke, K. J., Schulze, G. & Pascual, J. I. Competition of superconducting phenomena and Kondo screening at the nanoscale. Science 332, 940–944 (2011).
 9.
Hatter, N., Heinrich, B. W., Ruby, M., Pascual, J. I. & Franke, K. J. Magnetic anisotropy in Shiba bound states across a quantum phase transition. Nat. Commun. 6, 8988 (2015).
 10.
Ruby, M. et al. Tunneling processes into localized subgap states in superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 087001 (2015).
 11.
Žitko, R., Bodensiek, O. & Pruschke, T. Effects of magnetic anisotropy on the subgap excitations induced by quantum impurities in a superconducting host. Phys. Rev. B 83, 054512 (2011).
 12.
Pillet, J.D. et al. Andreev bound states in supercurrentcarrying carbon nanotubes revealed. Nat. Phys. 6, 965–969 (2010).
 13.
Deacon, R. S. et al. Tunneling spectroscopy of andreev energy levels in a quantum dot coupled to a superconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 076805 (2010).
 14.
GroveRasmussen, K. et al. Superconductivityenhanced bias spectroscopy in carbon nanotube quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 79, 134518 (2009).
 15.
Lee, E. J. H. et al. Spinresolved Andreev levels and parity crossings in hybrid superconductorsemiconductor nanostructures. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 79–84 (2014).
 16.
Chang, W., Manucharyan, V. E., Jespersen, T. S., Nygård, J. & Marcus, C. M. Tunneling spectroscopy of quasiparticle bound states in a spinful Josephson junction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 217005 (2013).
 17.
Jellinggaard, A., GroveRasmussen, K., Madsen, M. H. & Nygård, J. Tuning Yu–Shiba–Rusinov states in a quantum dot. Phys. Rev. B 94, 064520 (2016).
 18.
Satori, K., Shiba, H., Sakai, O. & Shimizu, Y. Numerical renormalization group study of magnetic impurities in superconductors. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 61, 3239–3254 (1992).
 19.
Bauer, J., Oguri, A. & Hewson, A. C. Spectral properties of locally correlated electrons in a Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer superconductor. J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 19, 486211–486230 (2007).
 20.
Yao, N. Y. et al. Phase diagram and excitations of a Shiba molecule. Phys. Rev. B 90, 241108 (2014).
 21.
Kezilebieke, S., Dvorak, M., Ojanen, T. & Liljeroth, P. Coupled Yu–Shiba–Rusinov states in molecular dimers on NbSe_{2}. Nano. Lett. 18, 2311–2315 (2018).
 22.
NadjPerge, S. et al. Observation of Majorana fermions in ferromagnetic atomic chains on a superconductor. Science 346, 602–607 (2014).
 23.
Pientka, F., Glazman, L. I. & von Oppen, F. Topological superconducting phase in helical shiba chains. Phys. Rev. B 88, 155420 (2013).
 24.
Schecter, M., Flensberg, K., Christensen, M. H., Andersen, B. M. & Paaske, J. Selforganized topological superconductivity in a Yu–Shiba–Rusinov chain. Phys. Rev. B 93, 140503 (2016).
 25.
Fulga, I. C., Haim, A., Akhmerov, A. R. & Oreg, Y. Adaptive tuning of Majorana fermions in a quantum dot chain. New J. Phys. 15, 045020 (2013).
 26.
Su, Z. et al. Andreev molecules in semiconductor nanowire double quantum dots. Nat. Commun. 8, 585 (2017).
 27.
Sherman, D. et al. Normal, superconducting and topological regimes of hybrid double quantum dots. Nat. Nano 12, 212–217 (2017).
 28.
Jeong, H., Chang, A. M. & Melloch, M. R. The Kondo effect in an artificial quantum dot molecule. Science 293, 2221–2223 (2001).
 29.
van der Wiel, W. G. et al. Electron transport through double quantum dots. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1–22 (2002).
 30.
Chorley, S. J. et al. Tunable Kondo physics in a carbon nanotube double quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 156804 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank M. C. Hels and C. B. Sørensen. Research was supported by the Center for Quantum Devices, The Danish National Research Foundation, Carlsberg Foundation, The Independent Research Fund Denmark (Natural Sciences), the FP7 FETOpen SE2ND project and the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) under Program P10044 and J17259.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
K.G.R. and A.J. performed the measurements, A.J. fabricated the devices and M.H.M. grew the nanowires. K.G.R., A.J., and J.N. designed the double quantum dot experiments, G.S., K.G.R., and J.P. made the ZBW analysis, G.S. and J.P. the conductance asymmetry calculations, and R.Z. provided the NRG analysis. K.G.R., G.S., J.P., R.Z., and J.N. participated in discussions, analysis and wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
GroveRasmussen, K., Steffensen, G., Jellinggaard, A. et al. Yu–Shiba–Rusinov screening of spins in double quantum dots. Nat Commun 9, 2376 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146701804683x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

MagneticFieldIndependent Subgap States in Hybrid Rashba Nanowires
Physical Review Letters (2020)

Magnetically confined bound states in Rashba systems
Physical Review Research (2020)

Temperature induced shifts of Yu–Shiba–Rusinov resonances in nanowirebased hybrid quantum dots
Communications Physics (2020)

Nonlocal pairing as a source of spin exchange and Kondo screening
Physical Review B (2019)

Giant superconducting proximity effect on spintronic anisotropy
Physical Review B (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.