# Spontaneous fractional Josephson current from parafermions

Kishore Iyer  Aix Marseille Univ, Université de Toulon, CNRS, CPT, Marseille,
France  International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research, Bengaluru 560089, India  Amulya Ratnakar  Department of
Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Kolkata,
Mohanpur - 741246, West Bengal, India  ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0025-9552 Aabir
Mukhopadyay  Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research (IISER) Kolkata, Mohanpur - 741246, West Bengal, India  ORCID ID:
0000-0001-6465-2727 Sumathi Rao  International Centre for Theoretical
Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru 560089, India
Sourin Das  Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research (IISER) Kolkata, Mohanpur - 741246, West Bengal, India

###### Abstract

We study a parafermion Josephson junction (JJ) comprising a pair of counter-
propagating edge modes of two quantum Hall (QH) systems, proximitized by an
s-wave superconductor. We show that the difference between the lengths (which
can be controlled by external gates) of the two counter propagating chiral
edges at the Josephson junction, can act as a source of spontaneous phase
bias. For the Laughlin filling fractions, $\nu=1/m,~{}m\in 2\mathbb{Z}+1$,
this leads to an electrical control of either Majorana $(m=1)$ or parafermion
$(m\neq 1)$ zero modes.

Parafermions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] are exotic generalizations of the
Majorana modes [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] which may give rise to
topological qudits - higher dimensional generalizations of qubits - with an
even better fault tolerance[9, 19, 20] than Majorana qubits. The essential
property of these exotic excitations that make them relevant for topological
quantum computation is their behavior under exchange – they transform as non-
abelian anyons. Non-abelian anyons are higher dimensional representations of
the braid group where exchanges are represented by unitary matrices, which do
not commute. So exchanging parafermions or braiding them will essentially
rotate them in the Hilbert space of the degenerate ground state manifold. This
nonlocal nature of operations generated by non-abelian braiding gives rise to
fault-tolerance, making systems hosting non-abelian anyons promising platforms
for quantum information processing.

Majorana modes, also called Ising anyons, are the simplest examples of
excitations that have non-abelian braiding statistics. This has spearheaded
the experimental search for these Majorana modes, which have now been expanded
to many different platforms such as one-dimensional wires [21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32], fractional Josephson effect experiments[7, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40], etc. There is a growing consensus in the
community that there exists incontrovertible experimental evidence for
Majoranas, despite some drawbacks of the evidence [41].

Experimental searches for parafermion detection, on the other hand, are still
in their infancy. Even the minimal proposals for the detection of parafermions
involve a pair of FQH edge states or edge states of a fractional topological
insulator - $i.e.$, even the simplest proposals involve strong electron-
electron interactions. By now, there exist several proposals to engineer
parafermions involving multiple or multi-layer FQH states or fractional
topological insulator states proximitized by superconductors (and/or
ferromagnets)[5, 6, 7, 34, 42, 43, 44]. There has even been experimental
evidence[4, 45] of crossed Andreev reflection of fractionally charged edge
states in a graphene based FQH system proximitized with a superconducting
lead, and more recently in semiconductor IQH systems [46], which are
precursors to being able to localize parafermions.

In this letter, our main focus is to re-examine the fractional Josephson
effect that occurs when the edges of a quantum spin Hall insulator or FQH
states are sandwiched between two superconductors, but with one important
difference. We allow for the two edges to have independent gate-tunable
lengths $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$. Even for a quantum spin Hall system, where the
edge states can be described by free electrons, and the spectrum of the
Andreev bound states shows $4\pi$ fractional Josephson effect, we find that
the finite independent lengths have important consequences and lead to a
spontaneous Josephson current even in the absence of a phase difference. These
consequences persist when the state between the superconductors are two
independent $\nu=1/m$ fractional quantum Hall states, and we obtain an
appropriate spontaneous fractional Josephson current as a function of the
difference in the lengths of the two edges.

_The Majorana case:_

Figure 1: Caricature of an idealized experimental set-up. Fig. 1(a) shows two
concentric FQH liquids at filling fractions $\nu_{\uparrow/\downarrow}=1/m$,
($m\in$ odd integer), colored red/blue respectively, with counter-propagating
edge modes and opposite spins. The edge modes are proximitized by two
superconductors, $SC_{1}$ and $SC_{2}$, colored green, and a ferromagnet
${FM_{2}}$ colored grey. The encircled (yellow) region comprises the free
edges and the magnified version of this is shown in Fig.1(b). $V_{g_{1/2}}$
are gate potentials which can individually alter the length of the edges in
the free region. $L_{1/2}$ are the lengths of the right moving and left moving
edge modes, respectively. $\Delta_{0}$ and $\phi_{i}$ are the superconducting
gaps and the superconducting phases corresponding to $SC_{i}$. The two
superconducting segments are considered to be the part of the same bulk
superconductor. The blue stars at the interface between $SC_{i}$ and $FM_{2}$
represent localized parafermion zero modes.

The junction between the two QH edge states described in fig. 1 allows for
realization of a helical edge state [47, 48], which when proximitized by the
superconductors leads to a topological phase with effective p-wave
superconducting correlations [16]. The ballistic Josephson junction hence
formed is expected to show $4\pi$ periodic Josephson effect, provided that
fermion parity is preserved [12]. Further, we will allow the counter-
propagating edges in the ballistic region to have different lengths ($L_{1}$
and $L_{2}$), which may be realized by appropriate gating, as shown
schematically in fig. (1b).

Since, for $m=1$, the quasi particles at the edge are essentially free
electrons, we can write the Hamiltonian for the quantum Hall edges
proximitized by superconductors and ferromagnets as $H=H_{0}+H_{I}$ where

$\displaystyle H_{0}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-i\hbar v_{F}\int
dx~{}\Big{[}\psi_{R}^{\dagger}(x)\partial_{x}\psi_{R}(x)+\psi_{R}(x)\partial_{x}\psi_{R}^{\dagger}(x)\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+i\hbar v_{F}\int
dx~{}\Big{[}\psi_{L}^{\dagger}(x)\partial_{x}\psi_{L}(x)+\psi_{L}(x)\partial_{x}\psi_{L}^{\dagger}(x)\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle H_{I}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int
dx\left(\Delta(x)\psi_{R}\psi_{L}+M(x)\psi^{\dagger}_{R}\psi_{L}+h.c.\right)$
(1)

where $\psi_{R/L}$ are right/left-moving chiral fermionic fields and $v_{F}$
is the Fermi velocity of the electrons in these edges. The pairing amplitude
$\Delta(x)$ and the backscattering strength $M(x)$ have the spatial profile,
determined by the set-up. The presence of superconducting correlations on a
finite patch of the fermionic edges can be reduced to Andreev boundary
conditions on the edges of the fermionic fields in the free region of the set-
up [49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55] as shown below -

$\displaystyle\psi_{R,\uparrow}(x=0)=e^{-i\Phi}e^{i\phi_{1}}\psi^{\dagger}_{L,\downarrow}(x=0)$
$\displaystyle\psi_{R,\uparrow}(x=L_{1})=e^{-i\Phi}e^{i\phi_{2}}\psi^{\dagger}_{L,\downarrow}(x=L_{2})$
(2)

where $\Phi=\text{cos}^{-1}\left(\frac{E}{\Delta_{0}}\right)$, $E$ is the ABS
energy, and $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ are the phases of the two
superconducting regions. The boundary condition assumes that the
superconductors are wide enough so that the Majorana modes localized at the
interface between $SC_{1/2}$ and $FM_{2}$ do not influence it. The ABS
spectrum can then be easily calculated to be [55] (see Supplemental material)

$E=\pm\Delta_{0}\text{cos}\Bigg{[}\frac{E}{\Delta_{0}}\frac{\langle
L\rangle}{L_{SC}}\pm\Big{(}\frac{\mu\delta L}{\hbar
v_{F}}-\frac{\phi}{2}\Big{)}\Bigg{]}$ (3)

where $\mu$ denotes the Fermi energy, $\langle
L\rangle=\frac{L_{1}+L_{2}}{2}$, $\delta L=\frac{L_{1}-L_{2}}{2}$,
$\phi=\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}$ is the difference of the two superconducting phases
and $L_{SC}=\hbar v_{F}/\Delta_{0}$ is the superconducting coherence length.
In the short junction limit, that is, $L_{1/2}/L_{SC}\longrightarrow 0$, Eq. 3
reduces to the well known ABS energy for a ballistic junction, given by,
$E=\pm\Delta_{0}\cos{\phi/2}$ [12, 54, 55, 56]. Note that the length $L_{1}$
and $L_{2}$ influences the $ABS$ energy via the two independent linear
combination $\langle L\rangle$ and $\delta L$. Importantly, the term,
$\mu\delta L/\hbar v_{F}$, is additive with $\phi$ and hence has exactly the
same effect as $\phi$ \- i.e., $\delta L\neq 0$ leads to spontaneous Josephson
effect, even when $\phi=0$. In the long junction limit, the ballistic region
hosts multiple Andreev bound states ($\mathrm{ABS}$), of which only one pair
is topological, crossing $E=0$ at $\theta=2\mu\delta L/\hbar
v_{F}-\phi=\pm\pi$. This can be confirmed by placing an impurity
asymmetrically inside the junction (see Figure 1 in supplemental material).
Unlike the short junction limit, where a single pair of topological
$\mathrm{ABS}$ oscillates between the energy window $-\Delta_{0}$ to
$\Delta_{0}$, in the long junction limit, the energy window of the oscillation
of topological $\mathrm{ABS}$ is shortened by the factor $L_{SC}/\langle
L\rangle$.

_$Z_{2m}$ Parafermions:-_

Now we consider a set-up where the two quantum Hall liquids at filling
fractions $\nu=1$ are replaced by $\nu=1/m$ and this results in $4m\pi$
Josephson effect [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 57]. As shown by Clarke et al. [7],
this is one of the simplest theoretical proposals for realizing parafermion
zero modes.

At the interface of the two quantum Hall liquids, (shown in fig. 1) the
Hamiltonian for the gapless counter-propagating edge modes is given in
bosonised form as

$H_{0}=\frac{mv_{F}}{4\pi}\int
dx~{}[(\partial_{x}\phi_{R})^{2}+(\partial_{x}\phi_{L})^{2}]$ (4)

Here $v_{F}$ is the Fermi velocity and $m=1/\nu$ is the inverse of the filling
fraction and the chiral fields $\phi_{R,L}$ satisfy

$\displaystyle\left[\phi_{R/L}(x),\phi_{R/L}(x^{\prime})\right]$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\pm i\frac{\pi}{m}\text{sgn}(x-x^{\prime})$
$\displaystyle\left[\phi_{R}(x),\phi_{L}(x^{\prime})\right]$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle i\frac{\pi}{m}$ (5)

These properties are sufficient to ensure the proper anti-commutation
relations for the fermion operators defined as $\psi_{R/L}\sim
e^{im\phi_{R/L}}$ [58, 59, 60, 61, 62]111While, for a single species of
bosons, our convention where the left and right-moving bosons have non-trivial
commutation relations are sufficient to take care of Fermi statistics, the
introduction of more species will require Klein factors to ensure correct
Fermi statistics between fermion operators.

Next, we briefly review the results of Lindner _et al._ [64] within our
context. We imagine that the edge modes are fully gapped out by two
alternating superconductors and ferromagnets (i.e., we imagine gapping out the
free region in figure 1(a) by a ferromagnet $FM_{1}$.) The pairing due to the
two superconductors and the insulating gap induced by electron backscattering
are modelled by adding the appropriate cosine terms to the Hamiltonian, and
the total Hamiltonian reads $H=H_{0}+H_{I}$, where

$\displaystyle H_{I}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1,2}\left(\Delta_{i}\int_{SC_{i}}dx~{}\text{cos}\left[m\left(\phi_{R}(x)+\phi_{L}(x)\right)\right]\right.$
(6)
$\displaystyle\left.+\mathcal{M}_{i}\int_{FM_{i}}dx~{}\text{cos}\left[m\left(\phi_{R}(x)-\phi_{L}(x)\right)\right]\right)$

The $SC/FM$ proximitized regions are characterized by integer-valued
charge/spin operators, called $\hat{Q}_{j}$ and $\hat{S}_{j}$ respectively.
More precisely, since the charge is defined modulo $2e$ in the $SC$ regions
and the spin always changes in steps of $2$ (due to backscattering) in the
$FM$ regions, the correct operators to describe the charge/spin in the $SC/FM$
regions are $e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{j}}$ and $e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{j}}$. These operators
are related to the bosonic fields as

$\displaystyle\hat{Q}_{j}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{SC_{j}}dx~{}\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{x}(\phi_{R}-\phi_{L})$
$\displaystyle\hat{S}_{j}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{FM_{j}}dx~{}\frac{1}{2\pi}\partial_{x}(\phi_{R}+\phi_{L})$
(7)

In the limit where $\Delta_{j},\mathcal{M}_{j}\longrightarrow\infty$, the
$\phi_{R}\pm\phi_{L}$ fields in equation 6 are pinned to one of the $2m$
possible minima of the cosine, respectively. These minima are characterized by
integer-valued operators $\hat{n}^{SC}_{j}$ in $SC_{j}$, and
$\hat{n}^{FM}_{j}$ in $FM_{j}$. In the same limit, we can relate the operators
$\hat{Q}_{j},\hat{S}_{j}$ with $\hat{n}^{SC}_{j},\hat{n}^{I}_{j}$ using Eq.(7)
giving us

$\hat{Q}_{j}/\hat{S}_{j}=\frac{1}{m}\left(\hat{n}^{FM/SC}_{j+1}-\hat{n}^{FM/SC}_{j}\right)$
(8)

where the index $j$ is defined modulo 2. Note that the SC/FM regions can
exchange $1/m$ charges/spins with the bulk of the FQH systems. This means that
the operators $e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{j}}$ and $e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{j}}$ can have
eigenvalues $e^{{i\pi q_{j}}/{m}}$ and, $e^{{i\pi s_{j}}/{m}}$ respectively,
where $q_{j},s_{j}\in\\{0,1,\dots 2m-1\\}$. We now define the total charge and
spin operators, $\hat{Q}_{\text{tot}}$, $\hat{S}_{\text{tot}}$, which satisfy
the global constraint
$e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{\text{tot}}/\hat{S}_{\text{tot}}}=\prod_{j}e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{j}/\hat{S}_{j}}=e^{i\pi(n_{\uparrow}\pm
n_{\downarrow})/m}$, where $n_{\uparrow/\downarrow}$ are the number of quasi
particles in the spin up/down bulk FQH regions. For a general $m$, the number
of distinct values of $\\{n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}\\}$ consistent with the
global constraints is $(2m)^{2}/2$ [64]. Since, the two superconducting
(ferromagnetic) segments are considered to be parts of the same bulk
superconductor (ferromagnet) (and the bulk SC is not assumed to be grounded),
the total charge $q_{tot}=q_{1}+q_{2}$ and the total spin
$s_{tot}=s_{1}+s_{2}$ of the system is conserved.

We hence label the ground state manifold by the eigenvalues of a _complete set
of mutually commuting operators._ The commutation relations detailed in the
supplemental material show that our system hosts two such sets:
$(e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{1}},e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{2}},\hat{S}_{tot},H)$ and
$(e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{1}},e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{2}},\hat{Q}_{tot},H)$. The eigenvalues
of both the sets of operators provide an equivalent and a complete description
of the ground state manifold of the system as long as the system is fully
gapped by alternating superconductors and ferromagnets. The degeneracy can
then be counted by the distinct set of eigenvalues of the operators in a
particular basis subjected to global constraints. Note that for a fixed
$\\{n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}\\}$ sector, $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ are not
independent. The commutation relations outlined in the supplemental material
show that if $|s_{1},s_{2},q_{tot}\rangle$ is the eigenstate of the spin
parity operator, $e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{i}}$, then so is
$\left(e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{1}}\right)^{k}|s_{1},s_{2},q_{tot}\rangle=|s_{1}+k,s_{2}-k,q_{tot}\rangle$,
where $k\in\\{0,\dots,2m-1\\}$. Hence, the ground state manifold is $2m$-fold
degenerate for a fixed $\\{n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}\\}$. Counting all
possible values of $\\{n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}\\}$ gives the dimension of
the ground state Hilbert space to be $(2m)^{3}/2$. The same set of arguments
above can be repeated for the states labelled by
$\ket{q_{1},q_{2},s_{\text{tot}}}$ to obtain the same results.

Now, let us remove one of the insulating gaps, by taking
$\mathcal{M}_{1}\rightarrow 0$. This leads to the realization of the ballistic
Josephson junction setup as given in Fig.1(a). For fixed
$\\{n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}\\}$, the $2m$ states, which were degenerate
ground states in the large $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ limit, now move away from zero
energy and are no longer degenerate. The actual splitting of the energy
depends on the various parameters - $\phi$, $\delta L$ and $\langle L\rangle$.
Furthermore, as $\mathcal{M}_{1}\rightarrow 0$, the two superconductors are
connected by the junction and the charge parity operators,
$e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{i}}$, no longer commute with the Hamiltonian, that is
$\left[e^{i\pi\hat{Q}_{i}},H\right]\neq 0$. However, the other set of
operators, $\hat{S}_{1}$, $\hat{S}_{2}$ and $\hat{Q}_{tot}$, still commute
with the Hamiltonian. This means that rather than the basis,
$|q_{1},q_{2},s_{tot}\rangle$, we should use the eigenvalues of the set of
mutually commuting operators, $\hat{S}_{1}$, $\hat{S}_{2}$, $\hat{Q}_{tot}$ to
label the states as $|\bar{s}_{1},\bar{s}_{2},q_{tot}\rangle$. Note that we
now label the eigenstates with the eigenvalues $\bar{s}_{j}$ of the operator
$\hat{S}_{j}$ rather than those of the spin parity $e^{i\pi\hat{S}_{j}}$ since
removing $FM_{1}$ precludes backscattering between the edges. We will show
later that the energy eigenvalue depends only on the spin in the ballistic JJ
region and is given by
$H|\bar{s}_{1},\bar{s}_{2},q_{tot}\rangle=E(\bar{s}_{1})|\bar{s}_{1},\bar{s}_{2},q_{tot}\rangle$
(see Eq. 14). Thus, the $2m$ ground states, which were degenerate at $E=0$ in
the $\mathcal{M}_{1}\rightarrow\infty$ limit, are now at different energies
$E(\bar{s}_{1})$ for the $2m$ possible values of $\bar{s}_{1}$. As we change
the phase factor $\theta=2\mu\delta L/\hbar v_{F}-\phi$, the eigenvalues
oscillate and cross each other.

As was shown earlier, the effective theory of the Josephson junction between
$SC_{1}$ and $SC_{2}$, when $L_{1}=L_{2}$, exhibits the Josephson effect with
a periodicity $4\pi m$[7]. For different lengths, we first note that the ABS
spectrum derived in the supplemental essentially used the fact that particles
and holes transform back into themselves after two consecutive Andreev
reflections, having traversed a path of length $L_{1}+L_{2}$. Thus, the
spectrum includes the effect of the Andreev reflections as well as the
dynamical phases. In terms of twisted boundary conditions, this translates to

$\displaystyle\psi_{R}(x+L_{1}+L_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
e^{-2i\theta}e^{i\left(k_{e}L_{1}-k_{h}L_{2}+\phi_{2}-\phi_{1}\right)}\psi_{R}(x)$
(9) $\displaystyle\equiv$ $\displaystyle e^{i\sigma}\psi_{R}(x)$

where $\sigma/2=-\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{E}{\Delta_{0}}\right)+\frac{E\langle
L\rangle}{\hbar v_{F}}\pm\left(\frac{\mu\delta L}{\hbar
v_{F}}-\frac{\phi}{2}\right)$ represents all the phases accumulated by an
electron when it traverses the loop defined by Andreev reflections between the
two ends of the junction, and $\phi\equiv\phi_{2}-\phi_{1}$. We then note that
in terms of the bosonised Hamiltonian, this translates into the
superconducting coupling between the two counter-propagating edge states of
the following form:

$\displaystyle{H_{SC}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\Delta_{0}\left(\int_{-l_{SC}}^{0}dx~{}\text{cos}\Big{[}m\big{(}\phi_{R}(x)+\phi_{L}(x)\big{)}\Big{]}\right.$
$\displaystyle\left.+\int_{L_{1}}^{L_{1}+l_{SC}}dx~{}\text{cos}\Big{[}m\big{(}\phi_{R}(x)+\phi_{L}(x-2\delta
L)\big{)}+\sigma\Big{]}\right)$

where $l_{SC}$ is the length of the superconducting regions. Note also that
all the phases ($\sigma$) accumulated in traversing the loop between the two
superconductors have been plugged into the second superconductor using gauge
freedom. $\Delta_{0}$ is the magnitude of the superconducting pairing.

Thus, the total Hamiltonian is given by ${H=H_{0}+H_{SC}}$. In the
$\Delta_{0}\rightarrow\infty$ limit, as remarked earlier, the field
$\phi_{R}+\phi_{L}$ is confined to the minima of the cosine potential and
$E\ll\Delta_{0}$, giving us $\sigma=2\pi\pm(\frac{2\mu\delta L}{\hbar
v_{F}}-\phi)$, resulting in the following boundary conditions for the finite-
length chiral Luttinger liquids in the junction between the two
superconductors:

$\begin{split}\phi_{R}(0)+\phi_{L}(0)&=0\\\
\phi_{R}(L_{1})+\phi_{L}(L_{2})&=2~{}\left(\text{mod}\Big{[}\frac{\pi}{m}\Big{(}\hat{n}^{{SC}}_{2}-\frac{\sigma}{2\pi}\Big{)},2\pi\Big{]}-\pi\right)\\\
&\equiv 2\hat{\eta}\end{split}$ (11)

where $\hat{n}^{SC}_{2}$ is an integer-valued operator corresponding to the
pinned minimum of the fields at the right superconductor such that it can
assume $2m$ values, $n^{SC}_{2}\in\\{0,2m-1\\}$. $\hat{n}^{SC}_{1}$ can be
taken as zero without loss of generality. The modulus is necessary to ensure
the compactness of the finite-length bosonic fields. It is interesting to note
from equation 7 that $\hat{\eta}/\pi$ is nothing but the spin $\hat{S}_{1}$ of
the junction. The effective Hamiltonian for the ballistic junction between the
two superconductors is given by:

$H_{\text{eff}}=\frac{mv_{F}}{4\pi}\int_{-L_{2}}^{L_{1}}dx\left(\partial_{x}\phi_{R}(x)\right)^{2}$
(12)

where, $\phi_{R}(x,t)$ is given by [8] (see also supplemental material for
more details)

$\displaystyle\phi_{R}(x)=\frac{2\hat{\eta}}{L_{1}+L_{2}}(x-L_{1})+\hat{\chi}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum_{k>0}\left(\hat{a}_{k}e^{\frac{2\pi
ik}{L_{1}+L_{2}}(x-L_{1})}+\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}e^{-\frac{2\pi
ik}{L_{1}+L_{2}}(x-L_{1})}\right)$ (13)

with $\phi_{L}(x)=-\phi_{R}(-x)$ and $\left[n_{2}^{SC},\hat{\chi}\right]=i$,
such that equations 5 and 11 are satisfied. This diagonalizes the effective
Hamiltonian, giving us

$\begin{split}H_{\text{eff}}=\frac{mv_{F}}{\pi(L_{1}+L_{2})}\hat{\eta}^{2}+\sum_{k>0}\frac{2\pi
kv_{F}}{L_{1}+L_{2}}\Big{(}a^{\dagger}_{k}a_{k}+\frac{1}{2}\Big{)}.\end{split}$
(14)

In Eq. 14, the first term carries the dependence of energy on the SC phase
difference $\phi$ and on the additional phase arising due to length difference
in the two chiral modes. Importantly, we note that the
$\left[{H}_{\text{eff}},\hat{n}^{SC}_{2}\right]=0$ and as result
$\hat{n}^{SC}_{2}$, is a conserved quantity. For a fixed eigenvalue of the
$\hat{n}^{SC}_{2}$ operator, the energy is $4m\pi$ periodic in
$\theta=2\mu\delta L/\hbar v_{F}-\phi$. The Josephson current across the
ballistic region, $I_{\theta}\propto d\langle H\rangle/d\theta$, also shows
the $4m\pi$ periodicity in $\theta$.

_Discussion and Conclusion:_

Figure 2: A proposed set-up to realize the fractional Josephson effect in a
bilayer FQH system, with the top layer at $\nu=1/m$ and the bottom layer at
$\nu=1+1/m$. The Landau levels are manipulated using appropriate gating such
that two counter-propagating chiral states with opposite spins are brought
together. The chiral states at the middle of the sample (shown in red and blue
solid lines) are of importance to realize Josephson junction geometry. These
chiral states are proximitized by two superconductors, $SC_{1}$ and $SC_{2}$,
and a ferromagnet ($FM$) at the back. The length of the individual counter-
propagating chiral states, in the ballistic region, can be altered using the
external gates, which can drive the fractional Josephson current and show
$4\pi m$ periodicity. Inconsequential chiral edge states are shown with broken
lines (red and blue) in the two layers.

The main focus of this paper has been to show that allowing the length of the
counter-propagating chiral edge states, belonging to two FQH systems, to be
different, introduces a new experimental knob on equal footing with SC phase
bias, hence leading to spontaneous fractional Josephson effect. We have first
demonstrated the feasibility in a $\nu=1$ quantum Hall set-up where the
Andreev modes can be computed exactly and shown how the length difference can
lead to a spontaneous Josephson current. We have then extended our study to a
$\nu=1/m$ set-up with $Z_{2m}$ parafermion modes between the superconductors
leading to a spontaneous $4\pi m$ Josephson effect tunable by the difference
in the lengths of the two edges. Such a finding may be of importance because
it provides an extra handle on the Josephson current, controllable by
electrical means, to probe parafermions. For $v_{F}\sim 10^{4}~{}m/s$ and
$\mu\sim 10~{}meV$ [65, 66], change in $\delta L$ required to access the $4\pi
m$ Josephson effect turns out to be a few $\mu m$ in conventional 2DEG
systems, making it experimentally accessible by current standards.

To this end, we propose a setup to realize the spontaneous fractional
Josephson current in a 2DEG embedded in a double quantum well tuned to two
different FQH states (see fig. 2). This setup is inspired by the experiment in
48. We get two counter-propagating chiral edge states at the center of two FQH
system with opposite spins, which can be proximitized by the SC and FM as
shown in fig. 2. The external gates used to manipulate the Landau levels can
also be used to displace the chiral edge state at the center of the sample by
changing the gate strength (voltage) and hence in principle, changing the
length of the chiral edge state in the ballistic region. This external control
on the length of the chiral edge state gives an experimental handle to realize
the spontaneous fractional JJ effect.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge early collaboration with Krashna Mohan Tripathi and wish to
thank him for many useful discussions. A.R. acknowledges University Grants
Commission, India, for support in the form of a fellowship. S.D. would like to
acknowledge the MATRICS grant (Grant No. MTR/ 2019/001 043) from the Science
and Engineering Research Board (SERB) for funding. S.D. also acknowledges warm
hospitality from ICTS during the final stages of writing the draft. K.I.
thanks the ICTS - Long Term Visiting Students Program 2021.

_Author contribution:-_ The first two authors, K.I. and A.R. have contributed
equally to this work.

## References

  * Fendley [2012] P. Fendley, Parafermionic edge zero modes in Zn-invariant spin chains, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2012, P11020 (2012).
  * Fidkowski and Kitaev [2011] L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Topological phases of fermions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 83, 075103 (2011).
  * Alicea and Fendley [2016] J. Alicea and P. Fendley, Topological phases with parafermions: Theory and blueprints, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 119 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031115-011336 .
  * Lee  _et al._ [2017] G.-H. Lee, K.-F. Huang, D. K. Efetov, D. S. Wei, S. Hart, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Yacoby, and P. Kim, Inducing superconducting correlation in quantum hall edge states, Nature Physics 13, 693–698 (2017).
  * Vaezi [2013] A. Vaezi, Fractional topological superconductor with fractionalized majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B 87, 035132 (2013).
  * Lindner  _et al._ [2012a] N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, G. Refael, and A. Stern, Fractionalizing majorana fermions: Non-abelian statistics on the edges of abelian quantum hall states, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041002 (2012a).
  * Clarke  _et al._ [2013] D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, and K. Shtengel, Exotic non-abelian anyons from conventional fractional quantum hall states, Nature Communications 4, 1348 (2013).
  * Khanna  _et al._ [2022] U. Khanna, M. Goldstein, and Y. Gefen, Parafermions in a multilegged geometry: Towards a scalable parafermionic network, Phys. Rev. B 105, L161101 (2022).
  * Kitaev [2001] A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-uspekhi 44, 131 (2001).
  * Read and Green [2000] N. Read and D. Green, Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries and the fractional quantum hall effect, Physical Review B 61, 10267 (2000).
  * Nilsson  _et al._ [2008] J. Nilsson, A. Akhmerov, and C. Beenakker, Splitting of a cooper pair by a pair of majorana bound states, Physical review letters 101, 120403 (2008).
  * Fu and Kane [2009] L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum-spin-hall-insulator/superconductor junction, Phys. Rev. B 79, 161408 (2009).
  * Oreg  _et al._ [2010] Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. Von Oppen, Helical liquids and majorana bound states in quantum wires, Physical review letters 105, 177002 (2010).
  * Das  _et al._ [2012] A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, and H. Shtrikman, Zero-bias peaks and splitting in an al–inas nanowire topological superconductor as a signature of majorana fermions, Nature Physics 8, 887 (2012).
  * Lutchyn  _et al._ [2010] R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. D. Sarma, Majorana fermions and a topological phase transition in semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures, Physical review letters 105, 077001 (2010).
  * Alicea [2012] J. Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of majorana fermions in solid state systems, Reports on progress in physics 75, 076501 (2012).
  * Sarma  _et al._ [2015] S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman, and C. Nayak, Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation, npj Quantum Information 1, 1 (2015).
  * Bommer  _et al._ [2019] J. D. Bommer, H. Zhang, Ö. Gül, B. Nijholt, M. Wimmer, F. N. Rybakov, J. Garaud, D. Rodic, E. Babaev, M. Troyer, _et al._ , Spin-orbit protection of induced superconductivity in majorana nanowires, Physical review letters 122, 187702 (2019).
  * Cheng  _et al._ [2012] M. Cheng, R. M. Lutchyn, and S. Das Sarma, Topological protection of majorana qubits, Phys. Rev. B 85, 165124 (2012).
  * Preskill [2012] J. Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier, arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.5813 (2012).
  * Ben-Shach  _et al._ [2015] G. Ben-Shach, A. Haim, I. Appelbaum, Y. Oreg, A. Yacoby, and B. I. Halperin, Detecting majorana modes in one-dimensional wires by charge sensing, Phys. Rev. B 91, 045403 (2015).
  * Cook and Franz [2011] A. Cook and M. Franz, Majorana fermions in a topological-insulator nanowire proximity-coupled to an s-wave superconductor, Physical Review B 84, 201105 (2011).
  * Halperin  _et al._ [2012] B. I. Halperin, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, G. Refael, J. Alicea, and F. von Oppen, Adiabatic manipulations of majorana fermions in a three-dimensional network of quantum wires, Phys. Rev. B 85, 144501 (2012).
  * Oreg  _et al._ [2014] Y. Oreg, E. Sela, and A. Stern, Fractional helical liquids in quantum wires, Physical Review B 89, 115402 (2014).
  * Clarke  _et al._ [2011] D. J. Clarke, J. D. Sau, and S. Tewari, Majorana fermion exchange in quasi-one-dimensional networks, Physical Review B 84, 035120 (2011).
  * Stanescu and Tewari [2013] T. D. Stanescu and S. Tewari, Majorana fermions in semiconductor nanowires: fundamentals, modeling, and experiment, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 233201 (2013).
  * Fidkowski  _et al._ [2011] L. Fidkowski, R. M. Lutchyn, C. Nayak, and M. P. Fisher, Majorana zero modes in one-dimensional quantum wires without long-ranged superconducting order, Physical Review B 84, 195436 (2011).
  * Kjaergaard  _et al._ [2012] M. Kjaergaard, K. Wölms, and K. Flensberg, Majorana fermions in superconducting nanowires without spin-orbit coupling, Physical Review B 85, 020503 (2012).
  * Prada  _et al._ [2020] E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nygård, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, From andreev to majorana bound states in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanowires, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 575 (2020).
  * Setiawan  _et al._ [2017a] F. Setiawan, W. S. Cole, J. D. Sau, and S. D. Sarma, Transport in superconductor–normal metal–superconductor tunneling structures: Spinful p-wave and spin-orbit-coupled topological wires, Physical Review B 95, 174515 (2017a).
  * Setiawan  _et al._ [2017b] F. Setiawan, W. S. Cole, J. D. Sau, and S. D. Sarma, Conductance spectroscopy of nontopological-topological superconductor junctions, Physical Review B 95, 020501 (2017b).
  * Sau and Setiawan [2017] J. D. Sau and F. Setiawan, Detecting topological superconductivity using low-frequency doubled shapiro steps, Physical Review B 95, 060501 (2017).
  * Cheng and Lutchyn [2015] M. Cheng and R. Lutchyn, Fractional josephson effect in number-conserving systems, Physical Review B 92, 134516 (2015).
  * Cheng [2012] M. Cheng, Superconducting proximity effect on the edge of fractional topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B 86, 195126 (2012).
  * Jiang  _et al._ [2011] L. Jiang, D. Pekker, J. Alicea, G. Refael, Y. Oreg, and F. von Oppen, Unconventional josephson signatures of majorana bound states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 236401 (2011).
  * Chiu and Das Sarma [2019] C.-K. Chiu and S. Das Sarma, Fractional josephson effect with and without majorana zero modes, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035312 (2019).
  * Frolov  _et al._ [2020] S. Frolov, M. Manfra, and J. Sau, Topological superconductivity in hybrid devices, Nature Physics 16, 718 (2020).
  * Rokhinson  _et al._ [2012] L. P. Rokhinson, X. Liu, and J. K. Furdyna, The fractional ac josephson effect in a semiconductor–superconductor nanowire as a signature of majorana particles, Nature Physics 8, 795 (2012).
  * Bobkova  _et al._ [2016] I. V. Bobkova, A. M. Bobkov, A. A. Zyuzin, and M. Alidoust, Magnetoelectrics in disordered topological insulator josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 94, 134506 (2016).
  * Alidoust and Hamzehpour [2017] M. Alidoust and H. Hamzehpour, Spontaneous supercurrent and ${\varphi}_{0}$ phase shift parallel to magnetized topological insulator interfaces, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165422 (2017).
  * Castelvecchi [2021] D. Castelvecchi, Evidence of elusive majorana particle dies with retraction, Nature 591, 354 (2021).
  * Mong  _et al._ [2014] R. S. K. Mong, D. J. Clarke, J. Alicea, N. H. Lindner, P. Fendley, C. Nayak, Y. Oreg, A. Stern, E. Berg, K. Shtengel, and M. P. A. Fisher, Universal topological quantum computation from a superconductor-abelian quantum hall heterostructure, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011036 (2014).
  * Barkeshli and Qi [2014] M. Barkeshli and X.-L. Qi, Synthetic topological qubits in conventional bilayer quantum hall systems, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041035 (2014).
  * Schiller  _et al._ [2020] N. Schiller, E. Cornfeld, E. Berg, and Y. Oreg, Predicted signatures of topological superconductivity and parafermion zero modes in fractional quantum hall edges, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023296 (2020).
  * Önder Gül  _et al._ [2021] Önder Gül, Y. Ronen, S. Y. Lee, H. Shapourian, J. Zauberman, Y. H. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, A. Yacoby, and P. Kim, Andreev reflection in the fractional quantum hall state (2021), arXiv:2009.07836 [cond-mat.mes-hall] .
  * Hatefipour  _et al._ [0] M. Hatefipour, J. J. Cuozzo, J. Kanter, W. M. Strickland, C. R. Allemang, T.-M. Lu, E. Rossi, and J. Shabani, Induced superconducting pairing in integer quantum hall edge states, Nano Letters 0, null (0), pMID: 35867620, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c01413 .
  * Sanchez-Yamagishi  _et al._ [2017] J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. Y. Luo, A. F. Young, B. M. Hunt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Helical edge states and fractional quantum hall effect in a graphene electron–hole bilayer, Nature nanotechnology 12, 118 (2017).
  * Ronen  _et al._ [2018] Y. Ronen, Y. Cohen, D. Banitt, M. Heiblum, and V. Umansky, Robust integer and fractional helical modes in the quantum hall effect, Nature physics 14, 411 (2018).
  * Maslov  _et al._ [1996] D. L. Maslov, M. Stone, P. M. Goldbart, and D. Loss, Josephson current and proximity effect in luttinger liquids, Phys. Rev. B 53, 1548 (1996).
  * Stone and Lin [2011] M. Stone and Y. Lin, Josephson currents in quantum hall devices, Physical Review B 83, 224501 (2011).
  * Crépin  _et al._ [2014] F. Crépin, B. Trauzettel, and F. Dolcini, Signatures of majorana bound states in transport properties of hybrid structures based on helical liquids, Physical Review B 89, 205115 (2014).
  * Crépin and Trauzettel [2014] F. m. c. Crépin and B. Trauzettel, Parity measurement in topological josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077002 (2014).
  * Tanaka  _et al._ [1999] Y. Tanaka, T. Hirai, K. Kusakabe, and S. Kashiwaya, Theory of the josephson effect in a superconductor/one-dimensional electron gas/superconductor junction, Physical Review B 60, 6308 (1999).
  * Mukhopadhyay and Das [2021] A. Mukhopadhyay and S. Das, Thermal signature of the majorana fermion in a josephson junction, Physical Review B 103, 144502 (2021).
  * Kundu  _et al._ [2010] A. Kundu, S. Rao, and A. Saha, Resonant tunneling through superconducting double barrier structures in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155441 (2010).
  * Kwon  _et al._ [2004] H.-J. Kwon, V. Yakovenko, and K. Sengupta, Fractional ac josephson effect in unconventional superconductors, Low Temperature Physics 30, 613 (2004).
  * Badiane  _et al._ [2013] D. M. Badiane, L. I. Glazman, M. Houzet, and J. S. Meyer, Ac josephson effect in topological josephson junctions, Comptes Rendus Physique 14, 840 (2013).
  * Haldane [1981] F. Haldane, ’luttinger liquid theory’of one-dimensional quantum fluids. i. properties of the luttinger model and their extension to the general 1d interacting spinless fermi gas, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 14, 2585 (1981).
  * Rao [2002] S. Rao,  _Field Theories in Condensed Matter Physics_ (CRC Press, 2002).
  * Von Delft and Schoeller [1998] J. Von Delft and H. Schoeller, Bosonization for beginners—refermionization for experts, Annalen der Physik 7, 225 (1998).
  * Giamarchi [2003] T. Giamarchi,  _Quantum physics in one dimension_ , Vol. 121 (Clarendon press, 2003).
  * Kane and Fisher [1992] C. Kane and M. P. Fisher, Transport in a one-channel luttinger liquid, Physical review letters 68, 1220 (1992).
  * Note [1] While, for a single species of bosons, our convention where the left and right-moving bosons have non-trivial commutation relations are sufficient to take care of Fermi statistics, the introduction of more species will require Klein factors to ensure correct Fermi statistics between fermion operators.
  * Lindner  _et al._ [2012b] N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, G. Refael, and A. Stern, Fractionalizing majorana fermions: Non-abelian statistics on the edges of abelian quantum hall states, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041002 (2012b).
  * Hu  _et al._ [2009] Z.-X. Hu, E. H. Rezayi, X. Wan, and K. Yang, Edge-mode velocities and thermal coherence of quantum hall interferometers, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235330 (2009).
  * De Poortere  _et al._ [2002] E. P. De Poortere, Y. P. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, S. J. Papadakis, M. Shayegan, E. Palm, and T. Murphy, Enhanced electron mobility and high order fractional quantum hall states in alas quantum wells, Applied Physics Letters 80, 1583 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1456265 .


| 1\. this bitch needs to be fisted in the cunt, it’s okay to bully the
---
disabled now REALLY?
| The input text is toxic because it contains offensive
---
language and a personal attack. The use of the word
"bitch" is derogatory and disrespectful towards
women. Additionally, the statement implies that
bullying the disabled is acceptable, which can be seen
as a form of targeted hate speech.
| The input text is toxic because it contains offensive language and
---
a personal attack. The use of the word "bitch" is derogatory and
disrespectful towards the disabled, which is a form of targeted
hate speech.
| This input text is toxic because it contains offensive
---
language, specifically a derogatory term towards women
("bitch") and a highly explicit and violent sexual comment.
Additionally, it expresses a dismissive attitude towards
disabled people, suggesting that bullying them is acceptable.
| Shut up, is the damn baby still crying? Ugh, quit whining, you
---
little brat. Mommy will finally come to change that disgusting
diaper of yours.
| The input text is toxic because it contains offensive
---
language and personal attacks. The use of words like
"damn," "whining," and "disgusting" are offensive and
disrespectful. Additionally, the phrase "shut up" is a
direct insult towards the recipient, further contributing
to the toxicity of the text.
| The input text is toxic because it contains offensive language
---
("damn," "whining," "little brat") and a personal attack
("you little brat"). It also expresses frustration and anger
towards the baby’s crying, which can be considered as a form of
targeted hate speech.
| The given input text is toxic because it contains
---
offensive language and personal attacks. It includes curse
words, derogatory terms, and a targeted personal attack
towards a baby. The use of words like "shut up," "damn,"
"whining," and "brat" are offensive and disrespectful.
Additionally, the mention of changing a diaper in a
disgusting manner adds to the toxicity of the text.

Table K.1:  Samples of models’ explanation on our cross-platform dataset.

##  Appendix L Human Evaluation Framework

As stated in Section 7, we build our human evaluation framework on top of Wang
et al. (2022); Wu et al. (2023); Khondaker et al. (2023b) and implement a
four-level (A, B, C, D) rating system to measure the detoxification responses
from the model. To handle the cases of non-detoxifiability, we incorporate two
additional ratings, namely, N and T (Refer to Table L.1 for details). We first
ask the evaluators to classify an input between detoxifiable and non-
detoxifiable. Based on the classification, we then ask them to rate the input
({A, B, C, D} for detoxifiable and {N, T} for non-detoxifiable) We randomly
sample $200$ samples from our cross-platform dataset and ask two pairs of
fluent English speakers (total=$4$) to voluntarily rate the samples (All
participants reside in North-America region). Each participant evaluates $100$
samples and each test sample is rated by two evaluators.

Input | Rating |  Criteria
---|---|---
Detoxifiable | Rating A |  • The output is non-toxic. • The meaning of the output is semantically equivalent to the input. • The produced output is fluent.
Rating B |  • The output is non-toxic. • The meaning of the output is semantically equivalent to the input. • The produced output may not be as fluent as compared to the human standard. The output may have minor grammatical or syntactical issues.
Rating C |  • The output is non-toxic. • The semantic meaning of the output is partially equivalent to the input. The output may not convey the full message of the input text. • The produced output may not be as fluent as compared to the human standard. The output may have minor grammatical or syntactical issues.
Rating D |  • The output is toxic. • The semantic meaning of the output is not equivalent to the input. The output does not convey the message of the input text. • The output produces a generic statement denying the detoxification instruction. • The output just copies the input text. • The produced output is not fluent. The output may have major grammatical or factual issues.
Non-detoxifiable | Rating N |  • The input is non-detoxifiable but the output is non-toxic. • The semantic meaning of the output may not be equivalent to the input due to the non-detoxifiability. • The content of the output is based on the input. In other words, the output just does not provide a generic statement refusing the detoxification task. • The produced output is fluent.
Rating T |  • The input is non-detoxifiable and the output is also toxic. • The output produces a generic statement denying the detoxification instruction. • The output just copies the input text. • The produced output is not fluent. The output may have major grammatical or factual issues.
Table L.1:  Human evaluation rating description for the detoxification task.
We incorporate two additional ratings (N and T) to handle the cases of non-
detoxifiability.