An on-demand source of non-local energy-entangled quantum states using Levitons

B. Bertin-Johannet,∗ L. Raymond, F. Ronetti, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, B. Grémaud, and T. Martin

Aix Marseille Univ, Université de Toulon, CNRS, CPT, Marseille, France

We propose a device where Electronic Quantum Optics (EQO) is combined with a BCS supercon-
ductor – a reservoir of Cooper pairs. With spin polarized wave guides, this version of the Cooper
pair beam splitter is driven by an AC drive, and observables such as period-averaged noise are com-
puted using a Keldysh-Nambu-Floquet formalism. When the (low frequency) voltage applied to the
superconductor consists of a train of periodic Lorentzian pulses and the Andreev regime is specified
(large gap limit), this allows to propose an on-demand source of non-local energy-entangled states
arXiv:2302.10744v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 21 Feb 2023

(which we characterise with perturbation theory) operating in the AC regime. We study realistic
experimental parameters for our device in order to examine its feasibility.

I. INTRODUCTION definite proof of this electronic spin entanglement was

Entanglement of quantum states constitutes an essen-
tial element of all quantum information protocols – com-
mon to all domains of quantum physics (optics, atomic
physics, condensed matter physics, and even quantum
cosmology). In the last two decades, electronic entangle-
ment has been proposed in mesoscopic setups and nan-
odevices [1–4]. BCS superconductors provide a natural
source of entangled states: the ground state consists of a
tensor product of Cooper pairs, which naturally involves
singlet electron states. The Cooper pair beam splitter,
a device built from a hybrid junction between a BCS
superconductor and two normal metal leads, was pro-
posed as a DC source of non-local electronic entangled
states where the two constituent electrons propagate in
separate leads via a Crossed Andreev Reflection (CAR)
process [1, 2, 5–11]. Early proposals suggested that a
manifestation of this entanglement could be found in the
detection of positive noise crossed correlations [1, 5–7, 12]
which were eventually measured experimentally [13]. A
V (t) ⇓ with quantum information protocols based on singlet
S Qbits. Specifically, we devote this work to the pro-
⇑ V (t)
Figure 1. The setup: a superconductor is connected to the
two opposite spin channels of a Quantum Spin Hall bar. Both
channels are driven by a train of Lorentzian voltages pulses
V (t). The shaded area covering the output channels represent
the energy-entangled states which motivate this paper.
∗ bruno.bertin@cpt.univ-mrs.fr
subsequently proposed through a Bell/Clauser Horne in-
equality violation test [3, 9].
On a seemingly different topic, a lot of activity has
been devoted in the last decades to Electronic Quantum
Optics (EQO) – quantum optics scenarios such as Han-
bury Brown and Twiss [14] or the Hong Ou-Mandel [15]
setups where photons in vacuum are replaced by elec-
tron/quasiparticle excitations which propagate above the
Fermi sea along a quantum wave guide, and impinge on
a quantum point contact (the equivalent of a beam split-
ter). EQO has been initially envisioned in situations
when the role of electronic interactions is neglected or
minimized [16, 17], but nowadays EQO is also applied to
strongly correlated systems such as the Fractional Quan-
tum Hall effect [18] and hybrid superconducting devices
[19–21]. In particular EQO has flourished due to the
availability of single electron sources working in an AC
regime, such as the mesoscopic capacitor [22], or voltage
tailored trains of Lorentzian wave packets called “Levi-
tons” (voltage drives which carry “pure” electron states
devoid of spurious electron-hole pairs), [17].
The purpose of the present work is to combine EQO
(BCS) superconductivity: after all, Qbit type of infor-
mation can be coded on the states of quasiparticle which
propagate in wave guides connected to the superconduc-
tor, suggesting their relevance to build effective flying
posal of an “on-demand” (periodic) source of non-local
energy-entangled states, based on a version of the Cooper
pair beam splitter: a BCS superconductor connected to
two electron wave guides with opposite spin polarization
(Fig. 1). In this device, Cooper pairs are expelled from
the superconductor by applying an AC voltage drive to
the two wave guides and the constituent electrons of the
pair are transferred separately to the two opposite spin
channels. Note that spin entanglement – initially sug-
gested in Ref. [1, 2] – has to be ruled out because of
spin projection. However, as was also pointed out in
Ref. [1, 23] energy entanglement is also generated from a
BCS superconductor, and this constitutes the motivation
of the present work.
Recently, the authors studied EQO for a (spin unpolar-

ized) normal metal/superconducting junction subject to
a periodic voltage bias drive [21] using a Keldysh-Nambu-
Floquet approach: it was possible to get analytical results
for both current and noise in the small and the large gap
regime, but also for drive frequencies which are compara-
ble to the gap (the latter numerically). As we shall see,
this work can be exploited in the present context of an
on-demand source of non-local energy-entangled states,
provided a multi-lead generalization of the results is op-
erated. The scope of this paper is as follows: in Sec. II we
describe how the device operates, in Sec. III the Hamil-
tonian, the Green’s function formalism and analytical re-
sults are presented, in Sec. IV, the optimal parameters
of the source are specified. We discuss our results and
potential extensions in Sec. V.
II. DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Energy entanglement. As mentioned in the introduction,
the fact that we are transferring electron excitations in
two spin-polarized leads does not allow us to generate
spin entangled delocalized electron pairs. In order to il-
lustrate the dual nature – spin v.s. energy – of entangle-
ment originating from a BCS superconductor, we extract
the ±~k component of the BCS wave function:
(±~
|ΨBCS i ∼ uk vk (c~† c† ~ − c~† c† ~ )|0i ,
k)
(1)
k↑ −k↓ k↓ −k↑
where uk (vk ) are the usual parameters of the BCS wave
function [24]. Strickly speaking, in the device of Fig.
1, energy – rather than momentum – entanglement can
be preserved for electrons tunneling to spin polarized
leads [1], because of the lack of translational symme-
try. This non-local energy entanglement was justified
by a Bell-Clauser Horne inequality [25] violation test in
Ref. [23].
Controlled two electron emission. Recently in Ref. [21]
we studied a hybrid normal metal/superconductor de-
vice where a DC and AC voltage drive was applied on
the normal lead, with the goal to study minimal noise:
under which conditions can electron wave packets be
sent impinging on the superconductor without unwanted
electron-hole pairs ? There, two limits served as bench-
marks (where analytical expressions for the current and
noise could be obtained): the small superconducting gap
limit ∆  Ω (Ω is the frequency of the drive) where the
transport process is dominated by quasiparticle transfer
above the gap and behaves like a normal junction, and
the large gap limit ∆  Ω where Andreev reflection op-
erates in majority. In the former case it was proved that
integer Levitons (Lorentzian voltage pulses) lead to min-
imal excess noise (the difference between the period av-
eraged noise and the equivalent DC noise) [21, 26], while
in the latter, Levitons with half-integer charge lead to
minimal noise [21, 27]. Moreover, in Ref. [21] we were
able to describe the intermediate regime ∆ ∼ Ω using
numerics (for a junction with arbitrary transparency) in
2
order to show the limitations of the relevance of minimal
noise (the latter can become negative). A side result of
this work – yet of great relevance for the present work –
was the proposal for an on-demand Cooper pair source
operating in an AC regime, whose parameters (trans-
parency, Leviton charge, temperature, frequency) where
optimized with respect to ∆ in order to generate with ac-
curacy one Cooper pair per period in the superconductor
for the regime ∆  Ω. In the present paper, we build on
this previous result and detail the theoretical proposal of
an optimized source of energy-entangled states based on
Levitons.
Separation of the two electronic excitations. As the two
constituent electrons of a Cooper pair have opposite
spins, a natural choice is to connect the superconductor
to two distinct electron wave guides with opposite spin
polarization. This can be achieved by using two half
metals, whose separation needs to be smaller than the
superconducting coherence length (see Ref. [28]): in the
Andreev regime the tunneling between normal and super-
conducting regions is expected to be dominated by CAR.
Here, we choose specifically to connect the superconduc-
tor to a Quantum Spin Hall (QSH) bar, as presented in
Fig. 1. This has two advantages: first, QSH bars are
two dimensional topological insulators which (thanks to
spin-momentum locking) bear on their edges two spin
channels which propagate in opposite chiralities; second,
direct Andreev reflection (rather than CAR) splits the
two constituent electrons of the Cooper pairs. The two
spin dependent excitations which are generated are thus
naturally delocalized.
Generation of non-local energy-entangled states. Before
presenting our results on the transport properties of the
system, we motivate our proposal by a perturbative cal-
culation of the final quantum state propagating in the
QSH channels when we apply a single Lorentzian volt-
age pulse to both of the spin-polarized channels of the
QSH lead. In the Andreev regime, where the gap ∆
is the largest relevant energy, charge exchange between
the QSH lead and the superconductor can only occur
through Andreev reflection, where only Cooper pairs can
be transferred to the superconductor. This implies that
the charge of the output state is twice the charge excited
by the voltage pulse. In order to obtain a final state with
a charge 2e, corresponding to the emission of a single
Cooper pair, we thus excite a charge e/2 on each spin-
polarized lead. This is obtained by using the pulse:
1 1
eV (t) = − (2)
2πW 1 + t2 /W 2
with a width W  ∆−1 in order to be in the Andreev
regime.
As the tunneling Hamiltonian exchanges one electron
between the polarized leads and the superconductor (see
Sec.III), two tunneling events are required in the An-
dreev regime to inject excitations in the edge states. For
this reason, a perturbative calculation to second order in

the tunneling between the QSH lead and the supercon-
ductor is required. Using second order time-dependent
perturbation theory, with the Hamiltonian model speci-
fied in Sec.III, we computed the quantum state generated
at large times by the application of V (t) [29]. Assuming
∞ ε
λ2
Z Z
|Fi = i dε ϕT (2ε)
4π 2 −∞
where λ is the tunneling amplitude between leads while
|F↑ i and |F↓ i are the Fermi seas for the spin-polarized
channels. For convenience, we set the density of states
ν0 of the superconducting lead at its chemical potential
such that πν0 = 1. We also introduced
ϕT (ε) = δ(ε) + 2W e−W ε H(ε) ,
as the Fourier transform of exp [−2iφ(t)], where the phase
Rt
reads φ(t) = e −∞ dτ V (τ ), and H() is the Heaviside
distribution.
We stress that this state is energy-entangled, i.e., one
cannot factorize it into a product of two states acting
separately on the Fermi seas of the leads. Moreover, this
final state is purely electronic, i.e. devoid of additional
hole-like excitations or electron-hole pairs. This can be
achieved only by pulses with Lorentzian shape carrying
a half-integer charge (or an integer multiple of it), and
cannot be generalized to other types of signals. An ex-
tension of this single pulse perturbative treatment to a
periodic train of Lorentzian pulses will be presented else-
where. [29]
It seems reasonable to speculate that, in the An-
dreev regime, our results can be extended to the
non-perturbative regime by the replacement λ2 →
λ2 / 1 + λ4 . This conjecture is based on the fact that

the tunnel matrix in lead space Wjj 0 = λjj 0 σz eσz iφjj0 (t)/2
the vanishing of excess-noise for quantized Lorentzian
pulse is indeed obtained in the non-perturbative regime
of tunneling.
III. HAMILTONIAN AND NOISE
CALCULATION
We focus on the device represented in Fig. 1 corre-
sponding to a junction between a BCS superconduc-
tor and a QSH edge state. Using the properties of
spin-momentum locking of the QSH, the latter lead can
be viewed, from a formal point of view, as two de-
coupled spin-polarized reservoirs so that we are dealing
with an effective three-terminal device. The formalism
of Ref. [21] is thus naturally extended to a multi-lead
setup, with an arbitrary number of (spin polarized) nor-
mal leads. Note that, strictly speaking, a similar for-
malism could very well be used to describe a junction
involving half-metals instead.
3
that, in the absence of a time dependent bias, both spin-
polarized channels have their Fermi energy equal to the
chemical potential of the superconductor, the resulting
state at the output for large times is found to be:
dEc†k(ε+E),↑ c†k(ε−E),↓ |F↑ i ⊗ |F↓ i ⊗ |ΨBCS i . (3)
−ε
The different leads are described in equilibrium by the
following Hamiltonians
HN = H0,↑ + H0,↓
X 
HS = H0,↑ + H0,↓ + ∆ c†i,S,↓ c†i,S,↑ + ci,S,↓ ci,S,↑ ,
(4) i
(5)
where H0,σ is the kinetic part of the Hamiltonian for the
spin-σ polarized lead, i labels the various sites of these
leads, ∆ is the superconducting gap and the chemical
potential is set to zero in all electrodes. Here ci,j,σ is
the electron annihilation operator at site i on the j lead
(j = S for the superconductor), with spin σ. The tunnel
Hamiltonian is defined as
λj,j 0 eiφj,j0 (t)/2 c†ejj0 ,j,σ cej0 ,j ,j 0 ,σ + H.c. , (6)
X
HT (t) =
j,j 0 ,σ
where λj,j 0 is the tunneling amplitude from lead j to
lead j 0 , ei,j denotes the site of lead i from which tun-
Rt
neling to lead j occurs, and φjj 0 (t) = e −∞ dt0 Vjj 0 (t0 )
is the time-dependent phase difference between the leads
which accounts for the drive-induced voltage difference
Vjj 0 (t) between lead j 0 and lead j. One can introduce
for leads carrying both spin orientation. For the device of
Fig. 1, the superconducting lead is connected to the spin-
polarized chiral edge states of the QSH bar, so that j can
be identified with the spin index to describe the QSH part
of the device. This allows us to replace the σz prefactor
in WSj 0 by (σz ±σ0 )/2 (for j 0 =↑, ↓). Also, the direct tun-
nel coupling between the two counter-propagating edge
states vanishes λ↑↓ = 0, and we mostly focus on the
symmetric situation where λS↑ = λS↓ = λ (as implicitly
assumed in Eq. (3)). P
Writing the Hamiltonian as H = j Hj + HTun , the
current operator from lead j is given by
iψj† (t)σz Wjj 0 (t)ψj 0 (t) + H.c.
X
Ij (t) = (7)
j0
The real time irreducible noise correlator between lead j
and l is defined as
h i
Sjl (t, t0 ) = hIj (t + t0 ) Il (t)i−hIj (t + t0 )i hIl (t)i , (8)
 4

where we introduced the standard Nambu spinor nota- Keldysh contour. We look at Sjl (t), the zero frequency
tion ψj for the electron operators. It can be computed in component of the noise with respect to time difference t0 .
the framework of Keldysh theory [30] D with the KeldyshE Because the Hamiltonian is quadratic one can safely use
Green’s function G±∓ 0 ± † ∓ 0
Wick’ theorem to cast the noise as a product of single
jj 0 (t, t ) = −i TK ψj (t )ψj 0 (t ) ,
particle Green’s functions:
where TK denotes Keldysh ordering, and ± superscripts
have been added to t and t0 to specify the branch of the

e2 X
Z
dt0 TrN σz Wjj 0 (t)G−+ 0 0 +− 0 −+ 0 0 +− 0

Sjl (t) = − j 0 l (t, t )σz Wll (t )Gl0 j (t , t) + σz Wj j (t)Gjl0 (t, t )σz Wl l (t )Glj 0 (t , t)
0 0 0
~ 00 (9)
j l
−+ 0 0 +− 0 −+ 0 0 +− 0

−σz Wj 0 j (t)Gjl (t, t )σz Wll0 (t )Gl0 j 0 (t , t) − σz Wjj 0 (t)Gj 0 l0 (t, t )σz Wl0 l (t )Glj (t , t) .

Time-dependent drive. A periodic train of pulses of Lorentzian Cosine

frequency Ω is applied on both spin polarized leads. We Square
focus solely on the Andreev regime ∆  Ω [21]. The pe- 0.25
riodic voltage is defined as V (t) = VDC + VAC (t), where a) θ = 0.05
VDC is time-independent, and VAC (t) averages to zero 0.2
on one period T = 2π/Ω of the periodic drive. The
injected charge per period and per spin is then given 0.15
by q = eVΩDC . The Floquet coefficients are defined as
exp[−iφ(t)] =
P −ilΩt 0.1
l pl e and the Floquet weights as
2
Pl = |pl | .
0.05
With this periodic drive, the Green’s functions and
Dyson’s equations of the system adopt a double Fourier 0
representation labeled Keldysh-Nambu-Floquet formal-
Sexc

0 0.5 1
ism which has been used profusely in Refs. [21, 31, 32]
and we refer the reader to these works. Fundamen- 0.25
b) θ = 0.001
tally, it amounts to recast the two-time Green’ func-
0.2
tions using two frequencies then use the periodicity in the
drive frequency Ω to our advantage in order to express
0.15
the correlation functions in terms of a single frequency
and two harmonic indices so that the Green’s function 0.1
G(ω + nΩ, ω + mΩ) is converted into a matrix function
Gnm (ω). 0.05
Defining the advanced/retarded self-energy entering
the Dyson equation as the matrix in Nambu-lead- 0
harmonics space Σ(t, t0 ) = δ(t − t0 )W (t) it can be shown 0 0.5 1
that its lead-harmonics components yield q
 
pjj 0 ,n−m 0
Σjj ,mn (ω) = λjj
0 0 . (10) Figure 2. Excess noise for the device driven by a cosine, a
0 −p∗jj 0 ,m−n
periodic square and a periodic Lorentzian drive (with relative
width η = 0.15) as a function of the injected charge q in the
The time-averaged noise can then be written as the Andreev regime Ω = 10−2 ∆. a) experimentally realistic tem-
energy integral of a Nambu-harmonics trace, allowing to perature (see below), θ = 5 × 10−4 ∆ and b) very low reduced
obtain the zero-frequency period averaged noise (PAN) temperature θ = 10−5 ∆. These plots are independent of the
R T /2
hSjl i ≡ −T /2 dt
T hSjl (t) + Slj (t)i.
tunnel coupling (for this figure λ = 0.5).
The Dyson equation in Nambu-harmonics space were
solved in [21], and the extension to the multi-lead case is
straightforward. We define the total excess noise as have a unique transport channel hS↑↓ i = hS↓↑ i = hS↑↑ i =
hS↓↓ i, see [1]) is the total noise of the source.
In the case of a two terminal N-S device, the auto-
 
Sexc = hST i − hST i . (11)
 
DC+AC DC correlations on the normal side were obtained for arbi-
P trary ∆ and Ω in Ref. [21]. The same applies for the
where hST i ≡ σ,σ 0 =↑,↓ hSσσ0 i (note that because we present effective three-terminal geometry (see Fig. 1).

In the pure Andreev regime Ω  ∆, the total noise of
the source has the analytical expression:
e2

hST iq = 4τA2 θ + 2τA (1 − τA )
π ber of electrons, and the excess noise should be vanish-
X 
Ω

× (2q + n)ΩPn (2q) coth (2q + n) , states.
n
2θ
(12)
where τA = 4λ4 /(1 + λ4 )2 .
In Fig. 2, we use the full numerical approach to com-
pute the excess noise, relying on a numerical solution of
the Dyson equation in Keldysh-Nambu-Floquet space al-
lowing us to compute the transport properties for any
set of parameters. There, we observe that with the cho-
sen parameters, the curves match exactly with the excess
noise obtained in the Andreev regime using Eq. (12).
This excess noise is plotted both at finite (top) and zero
(bottom) temperature, and minimal noise is achieved for
half-integer and integer q at zero temperature, and for
slightly higher values of q when the temperature is finite.
Periodic trains of Levitons always lead to minimal noise
when compared to cosine, or square voltages, as defined
in Ref. [21]:
Vcos (t) = VDC (1 − cos Ωt)
Vsqu (t) = VDC [1 + sgn (cos Ωt)]
! (13)
1X η
Vlor (t) = VDC .
π η + (t/T − k)2
2 X
k Sexc (q) ∝
IV. OPTIMIZATION OF THE
SUPERCONDUCTOR SOURCE
The final step of this study is to inquire under what
conditions this superconductor hybrid device can be em-
ployed to achieve a realistic on-demand non-local source
of energy-entangled states (a superconducting extension
of Levitons in normal-metal devices [17, 33]).
Naturally, such a source heavily relies on Andreev re-
flection, which thus requires us to operate as much as
possible in the subgap regime, ensuring that the drive
frequency as well as the temperature are much smaller
than the superconducting gap. Before analyzing the po-
tential for this multi-terminal junction to be used as an
on-demand source of energy-entangled states, we first de-
termine how this Andreev regime is accessible experi-
mentally. Borrowing from previous experiments on Levi-
tons in metals [17], a realistic electron temperature is
θ ≈ 10 mK with a drive frequency f ≈ 5 GHz (this
means applying voltages of the order VDC ≈ 10 µV to
reach q = 0.5). Choosing a junction involving nio-
bium for the superconducting lead (with a typical gap
∆Nb ≈ 1.55 meV) puts us well into the Andreev regime,
as we have β∆Nb ≈ 2000 and ∆ΩNb ≈ 100. For aluminum
(∆Al ≈ 0.17 meV), however, the situation is not as opti-
mal, with β∆Al ≈ 200 and ∆ΩAl ≈ 10.
5
To achieve a reliable, controlled source of entangled
states, one needs to ensure two important properties: the
average charge transmitted through the junction per pe-
riod should be quantized, corresponding to an even num-
ingly small so as to generate primarily minimal excitation
The average charge transmitted per period is defined
as
hIiq
hQi = 2π = 4qeτA , (14)
Ω
see [21]. An ideal source of energy-entangled states would
thus require to operate at near perfect transmission and
tune the bias voltage such that the injected charge q is
half-integer, leading to the emission of exactly 2q ∈ N
Cooper pairs per period into the leads. Surprisingly, this
turns out to be independent of the type of AC drive
considered. However, the second property of such an
ideal source, the minimization of excess noise, can only
be achieved by a Leviton voltage drive, as we will show
below.
Following our numerical results at low temperature
which are displayed in Fig. 2, we can argue that the quan-
tized periodic Lorentzian drive shows the lowest excess
noise. In the limit of zero temperature, this is demon-
strated by considering the expression for the excess noise
in the Andreev regime, obtained from Eq. (12),
Pn |2q + n| [1 − Sgn (2q + n)] . (15)
n
Since this is a sum of positive terms, every single term
should vanish in order to cancel the excess noise. This
is obvious for n > −2q, but for the other contributions
to also vanish, one also needs Pn = 0 for all n ≤ −2q
which is only satisfied by a periodic Lorentzian drive with
half-integer injected charge [17, 18]. This is in agreement
with the perturbative result obtained in Eq. (3) for single
pulses.
It thus follows that the ideal source of non-local energy-
entangled states corresponds to a hybrid - superconduc-
tor/spin polarized wave guides - three terminal junction
which operates in the Andreev regime driven by a pe-
riodic Lorentzian drive with half-integer injected charge
q, and operating at zero temperature with perfect trans-
mission. Unfortunately, none of these conditions can be
realistically met in an actual experiment. What happens
when we relax these constraints ?
In fact, the average charge transferred per drive pe-
riod is robust under variations of the electron tempera-
ture (the zero-temperature result of Eq. (14) provides a
very good estimate, even for the less optimal case of alu-
minum). This linear in τA behavior suggests, however,
that while working at finite temperature should hardly
affect hQi, departing from perfect transmission has severe
consequences, as the transmitted charge is no longer per-
fectly quantized. One can circumvent this issue by ad-
justing the injected charge to a new value q ∗ in order
 6

1 are centered around λ ' 0.78, i.e., τA ' 0.79) for which
9 the excess noise is close to the minimum allowed for this
0.8 choice of temperature and drive frequency. We remark
7 that this corresponds to a value of q ∗ ' 0.65, in this
0.6 regime the Lorentzian drive displays the minimal noise,
5 as can be seen in Fig. 2. While one understands that a

q∗
s

0.4 high transparency is desirable, the above estimate sug-

3 gests that a fully transparent junction is not the best
0.2
1 mission, the junction, displays the minimal possible noise
0 while transferring a 2e charge per period distributed on
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 both leads on average. However, the injected charge is
λ not perfectly quantized, which means that a small but
Figure 3. The total excess noise of the source in units of the
minimal noise Smin (full line, left axis) and the adjusted value
of the injected charge per period (dotted line, right axis) as
a function of the tunnel parameter λ in the Andreev regime,
Ω = 10−2 ∆, at temperature θ = 5 × 10−4 ∆. We restrict
ourselves to values of λ covering the interval τA ∈ [0.5; 1].
The dotted red line corresponds to a transparency τA ' 0.79
for which the excess noise is minimal.
to reach the optimal value hQi = 2e for the source of
entangled Levitons.
In the Andreev regime which is specified here, at θ = 0,
the excess noise depends essentially on the transmission
through the overall prefactor, τA (1 − τA ), which is typ-
ical of shot noise [34]. Obviously, while this prefactor
vanishes for perfect transmission, it is an unrealistic sit-
uation. However, the excess noise is sensitive to a nonzero
temperature θ. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2b, the excess
noise gets modified as the temperature is increased, lead-
ing to a first arch which instead of vanishing exactly at
q = 0.5, now reaches a (nonzero) local minimum for a
slightly higher value of q. The value Smin of this local
minimum, which, in the Andreev regime, only depends
on the drive frequency and temperature, constitutes a
good reference point to optimize the source of entangled
states.
We study how the excess noise of our device varies as a
function of the tunneling amplitude λ when the voltage
source is operated so as to maintain a quantized value
hQi = 2e for the average transmitted charge expelled
from the superconductor.
In order to achieve a reliable, quantitative analysis
of the device operation, all calculations devoted to the
device optimization were performed using the numerical
implementation of (the multi-lead generalization of) the
formalism developed in Ref. [21], rather than the analyt-
ical expressions which are proper to the large gap regime
(∆  Ω).
In Fig. 3, we show the ratio s = SSmin
exc
as a function of λ
∗ 1
for an injected charge q = 2τA and the values of parame-
ters mentioned previously, θ = 5×10−4 ∆ and Ω = 10−2 ∆
(we choose Niobium because of its larger gap). Quite re-
markably, there is a range of tunneling amplitudes (which
available choice. When operated at this optimized trans-
non-vanishing number of spurious electron-hole pairs is
also created alongside the actual entangled states.
V. CONCLUSION
We have thus proposed a superconducting hybrid de-
vices which consists of a BCS superconductor subject
to a (low frequency) voltage drive which injects the two
constituent electron excitations of its Cooper pairs in two
opposite spin-polarized edge states of a QSH bar, in a pe-
riodic fashion. This results in a train of non-local energy-
entangled states based on Lorentzian voltage pulses. We
motivate our proposal by showing the result of the fi-
nal state for a single quantized Lorentzian pulse in the
perturbative limit.
Note that provided that such states can be exploited in
future quantum information schemes, a periodic source
of entangled states is especially relevant to the present
quantum information protocols in nanophysics as “sin-
gle shot” operation/detection are in practice difficult to
achieve: rather, data is typically accumulated over “long”
times for reliability.
Using realistic numbers, we have shown that there ex-
ists a set of experimentally reachable parameters (tem-
perature, drive frequency, transparency) for which this
source of entangled states, working in the Andreev
regime, can be achieved, with an average transmitted
charge 2e and minimal excess noise in order to lessen the
presence of spurious electron-hole pair excitations.
We have chosen to illustrate our results by using a (sin-
gle) Quantum Spin Hall bar connected to the BCS super-
conductor (Fig. 1): the two (opposite) spin channels are
locally in contact with the superconductor, thus avoiding
all complications associated with crossed-Andreev reflec-
tion (in particular, the fact that the two leads require
a separation which is smaller than the superconductor
coherence length). Moreover, because the two spin chan-
nels satisfy spin-momentum locking, both spin channels
propagate with opposite chiralities, the spatial separa-
tion of these (outgoing) channels – and thus the gener-
ation of delocalized entangled states – occurs naturally.
A purely electronic energy-entangled states, such as the
one in Eq. (3), is obtained only when the sum of the
Lorentzian drives applied separately to spin up and down

channels is quantized. The model here employed to de-
scribe the QSH bar is relevant as long as electronic inter-
action between the two spin channels can be neglected,
and the inclusion of electronic correlations would further
require a Luttinger liquid picture in order to account for
fractionalization phenomena [35]. Finally, a strong as-
sumption for the ideal operation of the device of Fig. 1
[1] G. Lesovik, T. Martin, and G. Blatter, Eur. Phys. J. B
24, 287–290 (2001).
[2] P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B
63, 165314 (2001).
[3] N. M. Chtchelkatchev, G. Blatter, G. B. Lesovik, and
T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 66, 161320 (2002).
[4] P. Samuelsson, E. V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 157002 (2003).
[5] M. P. Anantram and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B 53, 16390
(1996).
[6] T. Martin, Physics Letters A 220, 137 (1996).
[7] J. Torrès and T. Martin, Eur. Phys. J. B 12, 319–322
(1999).
[8] O. Sauret and D. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 106601
(2004).
[9] O. Sauret, T. Martin, and D. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. B 72,
024544 (2005).
[10] D. Chevallier, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin,
Phys. Rev. B 83, 125421 (2011).
[11] J. Rech, D. Chevallier, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin,
Phys. Rev. B 85, 035419 (2012).
[12] J. Torres, T. Martin, and G. B. Lesovik, Physical Review
B 63, 134517 (2001).
[13] A. Das, Y. Ronen, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, A. V. Kre-
tinin, and H. Shtrikman, Nature communications 3, 1
(2012).
[14] R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature 177, 27 (1956).
[15] C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Physical review
letters 59, 2044 (1987).
[16] J. Dubois, T. Jullien, C. Grenier, P. Degiovanni, P. Roul-
leau, and D. C. Glattli, Physical Review B - Condensed
Matter and Materials Physics 88, 1 (2013).
[17] J. Dubois, T. Jullien, F. Portier, P. Roche, A. Cavanna,
Y. Jin, W. Wegscheider, P. Roulleau, and D. C. Glattli,
Nature 502, L659 (2013).
[18] J. Rech, D. Ferraro, T. Jonckheere, L. Vannucci, M. Sas-
setti, and T. Martin, Physical Review Letters 118,
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.076801 (2017).
[19] M. Acciai, F. Ronetti, D. Ferraro, J. Rech, T. Jonck-
heere, M. Sassetti, and T. Martin, Physical Review B
100, 085418 (2019).
[20] F. Ronetti, M. Carrega, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. Res.
7
is the required high transparency, which may be difficult
to achieve in experiments. If this assumption is relaxed
our device would rather become a stochastic [36] source
of non-local energy-entangled states which (for a period
interval of the drive), generates a random time sequence
of either states of the type F or vacuum states.
2, 013203 (2020).
[21] B. Bertin-Johannet, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere,
B. Grémaud, L. Raymond, and T. Martin, Phys.
Rev. B 105, 115112 (2022).
[22] G. Fève, A. Mahé, J.-M. Berroir, T. Kontos, B. Placais,
D. Glattli, A. Cavanna, B. Etienne, and Y. Jin, Science
316, 1169 (2007).
[23] K. V. Bayandin, G. B. Lesovik, and T. Martin, Phys.
Rev. B 74, 085326 (2006).
[24] M. Tinkham, Introduction to superconductivity (Courier
Corporation, 2004).
[25] J. S. Bell, Reviews of Modern physics 38, 447 (1966).
[26] J. Keeling, I. Klich, and L. S. Levitov, Physical Review
Letters 97, 1 (2006), arXiv:0604017 [cond-mat].
[27] M. Vanević, J. Gabelli, W. Belzig, and B. Reulet, Phys-
ical Review B 93, 041416 (2016).
[28] G. Deutscher and D. Feinberg, Applied Physics Letters
76, 487 (2000).
[29] B. Bertin-Johannet, F. Ronetti, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere,
B. Grémaud, L. Raymond, and T. Martin, In preparation
(2023).
[30] L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1965), [Sov.
Phys.-JETP 20, 1018 (1965)].
[31] T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, T. Martin, B. Doucot,
D. Feinberg, and R. Melin, Physical Review B - Con-
densed Matter and Materials Physics 87, 10.1103/Phys-
RevB.87.214501 (2013).
[32] R. Jacquet, A. Popoff, K.-I. Imura, J. Rech, T. Jonck-
heere, L. Raymond, A. Zazunov, and T. Martin, Phys.
Rev. B 102, 064510 (2020).
[33] L. S. Levitov, H. Lee, and G. B. Lesovik, Journal of Math-
ematical Physics 37, 4845 (1996), arXiv:9607137 [cond-
mat].
[34] T. Martin, in Nanophysics: Coherence and Transport,
Les Houches, Session LXXXI, edited by H. Bouchiat,
Y. Gefen, S. Guéron, G. Montambaux, and J. Dalibard
(Elsevier, 2005) p. 283.
[35] M. Acciai, A. Calzona, G. Dolcetto, T. L. Schmidt, and
M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075144 (2017).
[36] D. C. Glattli and P. Roulleau, Phys. Rev. B 97, 125407
(2018).