Typical STM images before and after sputtering are displayed in Figure 1b,c, respectively. The former shows a clear periodic structure corresponding to the unit cell, while the latter shows a disordered bare silicon surface. Figure 1 Instrumentation and sample preparation. The whole procedure from the sample preparation through the transport measurement was performed in a home-built UHV apparatus without breaking vacuum (a). Typical STM images of a ( )-In sample before (b) (V sample = −0.015 V) and after (c) (V sample=2.0 V) are displayed. (d) The design of sample patterning in the black area shows the Ar +-sputtered region. The color GANT61 chemical structure indicates the degree of calculated current density (green, high; purple, low). (e) Optical

microscope image of a patterned sample. We note that, although the nominal Blebbistatin coverage of the evaporated In is more than several monolayers (ML), post annealing removes surplus In layers and establishes the ( )-In surface. The In coverage of this surface reconstruction was originally proposed to be 1 ML for the ‘hexagonal’ phase (( )-In-hex) and 1.2 ML for the ‘rectangular’ phase (( )-In-rect) [18], where 1 ML corresponds to the areal density of the top-layer Si atoms of the ideal Si(111) surface. However, recent theoretical studies point to the coverages of 1.2 ML for the ( )-In-hex and of 2.4 ML for the ( )-In-rect [21, 22]. For our experiments, the dominant phase is likely to be the

( )-In-hex judging from the resemblance of the obtained STM images (Figure 1b) to the simulated image of the ( )-In-hex (Figure two, panel b in [22]). The relation between the surface structure and the ABT-888 ic50 superconducting properties is intriguing and will be the subject of future work. In the previous study, van der Pauw’s measurement was adopted to check the anisotropy of electron conduction and

to exclude the possibility of spurious supercurrents. In this setup, however, transport characteristics should be analyzed with care because the spatial distribution of bias current is not uniform. To circumvent this problem, in the present study, we adopted a configuration with a linear current path between the voltage terminals (Figure 1d). SDHB The black regions represent the area sputtered by Ar + ions through the shadow mask. The figure also shows the current density distribution calculated by the finite element method in color scale, which confirms that it is homogeneous between the voltage probes. This allows us to determine the sheet resistance R □ of the sample in a more straightforward way: R □=(V/I)×(W/L), where V is the measured voltage, I is the bias current, W=0.3 mm is the width of the current path, and L=1.2 mm is the distance between the voltage probes. Figure 1e shows the optical microscope image of a sample, confirming the clear boundary between the shadow-masked and sputtered regions. Although the sputtering was very light, the resulting atomic-scale surface roughening was enough to make an optical contrast between the two regions.