 interesting to note that even though $\delta V$ is added only in region C, the scattering states (WF1, WF2) are affected in all regions L, C, and R reflecting the scattering processes.

To correlate the robustness of transmission $T(E,0)$ against the strength of the disorder potential $\delta V$, we have calculated configuration C8 (see Table-\[tab1\]) where $\delta V$ is randomly drawn from ranges $[0,U]$, results are shown in the inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c versus $U$. At Fermi energy $E=0$ (blue dotted line), $T(E,0) = 2$ until $U$ reaches $\sim 0.2$eV at which $T(E,0)$ substantially reduces (inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c). By investigating which atomic orbitals contribute to the scattering wave functions and also the real space WF1/WF2, the scattering states are found to be unconfined from the surfaces at this value of $U$, namely the helical states are destroyed. When $U$ increases further, $T(E,0)$ oscillates by the random disorder scattering configurations. At higher energies, we found that the helical edge states are much more robust. For instance, at $E=0.1$eV (solid curve in the inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c), $T(E,0)\approx 2$ until $U \sim 0.5$eV. This is reasonable since electrons with higher energy are less affected by potential perturbations.

So far we focused on transmission in the x-direction, $T(E,k_y=0)$. For the film, a 2D transmission $T(E)$ is obtained by integrating $T(E,k_y)$ over $k_y$, which gives the 2D conductance $G(E) = T(E)\times G_o$ where $G_o\equiv e^2/h$. The inset of Fig.\[fig2\]b plots $G(E)$. For energies outside the bulk gap, e.g. $E < 0$ or $E \gtrsim 0.27$eV, bulk propagating modes participate transport and therefore $G$ decreases according to the increase of the disorder. Within the gap, $G(E)$ changes negligibly for weak disorder C4 and C6, but more significantly in strong disorder C5 and C7. In contrast to $
interesting to note that even though $ \delta V$ is added only in region C, the scatter state (WF1, WF2) are affected in all regions L, C, and R chew over the scattering processes. 

 To correlate the robustness of infection $ T(E,0)$ against the persuasiveness of the disorder electric potential $ \delta V$, we have account configuration C8 (experience Table-\[tab1\ ]) where $ \delta V$ is randomly drawn from ranges $ [ 0,U]$, solution are indicate in the inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c versus $ U$. At Fermi energy $ E=0 $ (blue dotted line), $ T(E,0) = 2 $ until $ U$ strive $ \sim 0.2$eV at which $ T(E,0)$ substantially reduces (inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c). By investigate which atomic orbitals contribute to the scattering wave functions and besides the real distance WF1 / WF2, the scattering states are found to be unconfined from the surface at this value of $ U$, namely the helical states are destroyed. When $ U$ increases further, $ T(E,0)$ oscillates by the random disorderliness disperse configurations. At higher energies, we found that the helical edge states are much more robust. For case, at $ E=0.1$eV (solid curve in the gusset of Fig.\[fig2\]c), $ T(E,0)\approx 2 $ until $ U \sim 0.5$eV. This is fair since electron with higher energy are less affected by potential perturbations. 

 So far we focused on transmission in the ten - direction, $ T(E, k_y=0)$. For the film, a 2D transmission $ T(E)$ is obtained by integrating $ T(E, k_y)$ over $ k_y$, which gives the 2D conductance $ G(E) = T(E)\times G_o$ where $ G_o\equiv e^2 / h$. The gusset of Fig.\[fig2\]b plots $ G(E)$. For energies outside the bulk gap, e.g. $ east < 0 $ or $ E \gtrsim 0.27$eV, bulk propagate modes participate transport and therefore $ G$ decreases harmonize to the increase of the disorder. Within the gap, $ G(E)$ change negligibly for unaccented disorder C4 and C6, but more significantly in solid disorder C5 and C7. In line to $
 inheresting to note that eyen though $\delta V$ is avded onmy in reeion C, the scattering states (WD1, WF2) qre affected in all reeions L, C, and R rwflerting the scattecjng progzsses.

Fl coxrxlate the robusjness of tratsmission $T(E,0)$ acakndt the strength of the disorder potqntial $\cepta V$, we have salcllwted bokfiguration C8 (see Table-\[tab1\]) where $\delta N$ is randomly draen from ranges $[0,U]$, results age sjown in the inset lf Fig.\[fig2\]c cerstw $U$. At Fermi energy $E=0$ (blue dotted mine), $T(E,0) = 2$ until $U$ reaches $\sim 0.2$eX at chich $T(E,0)$ suvsranhhally reducxs (insvt of Fig.\[fig2\]c). By invevtigatimg which atomig orbmtalw contribute to the srattering wave functyons and dlao the real space WD1/WF2, tve swattdeine suatxs zre foknd to be uncknfined fron the surfaces at tnif value of $U$, nzmely ehq helical states are destroyed. When $U$ itcrsases further, $T(E,0)$ oscillqtes by the random didorder scwttering configurations. At higher energies, we foutd thet tht mclicxo fdge states are much more robust. For instance, zt $E=0.1$vV (solid curve in the inset pf Fod.\[fig2\]c), $T(E,0)\approb 2$ untnm $H \sim 0.5$eV. This is rfasonabje sibce electwons with higher energy are lesw affected bj porential perturbatilns.

So far wz focuxed om transmission in the x-birectjon, $T(E,k_y=0)$. Fog the filj, a 2D transmissiov $T(V)$ is obtained by integrating $T(Q,k_y)$ over $j_y$, wkich givds tne 2D cjnductance $G(E) = B(A)\times G_o$ where $G_o\fquiv e^2/v$. The inseh of Fig.\[fig2\]b plots $G(E)$. For energmxs outside thg bglk gap, e.g. $Z < 0$ or $E \gtrsim 0.27$eV, fulk propagatiug modes partkcipate trznsport and therefjre $G$ decreasad according vo the insreawe od the dkrorder. Within yhe gap, $G(V)$ ehanges nwgligibly for weak dirkrder C4 and C6, bbu mire significantky kn ftgonj disjsder C5 and C7. In zongtast go $
interesting to note that even though $\delta added in region the scattering states all L, C, and reflecting the scattering To correlate the robustness of transmission against the strength of the disorder potential $\delta V$, we have calculated configuration (see Table-\[tab1\]) where $\delta V$ is randomly drawn from ranges $[0,U]$, results are in inset Fig.\[fig2\]c $U$. At Fermi energy $E=0$ (blue dotted line), $T(E,0) = 2$ until $U$ reaches $\sim 0.2$eV which $T(E,0)$ substantially reduces (inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c). By which atomic orbitals contribute the scattering wave functions and the space WF1/WF2, scattering are to be unconfined the surfaces at this value of $U$, namely the helical states are destroyed. When $U$ increases further, oscillates by disorder scattering At energies, found that the states are much more robust. For (solid curve in the inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c), $T(E,0)\approx until $U 0.5$eV. This is reasonable since electrons higher energy are less affected by potential perturbations. far we focused on transmission in the x-direction, $T(E,k_y=0)$. For the film, a 2D transmission obtained by integrating $T(E,k_y)$ $k_y$, which gives 2D $G(E) T(E)\times where $G_o\equiv The inset of Fig.\[fig2\]b plots $G(E)$. For energies outside the bulk e.g. $E < 0$ or $E \gtrsim 0.27$eV, bulk propagating transport therefore $G$ decreases to the increase of disorder. the gap, $G(E)$ changes weak C4 more in disorder C5 and C7. contrast to $
 interesting to note that even Though $\deltA V$ is aDdeD onLy In reGion c, the scattering STateS (WF1, WF2) are affected in all rEgionS L, c, And R REfLectiNg the scATtERIng PrOcEssEs.

tO cOrrelAte The robuStness of trAnsMiSsion $T(E,0)$ againST tHe strength Of tHe disorder poTenTial $\deLtA V$, wE Have cAlcUlateD confiGUratioN C8 (see TablE-\[tAB1\]) where $\DElta V$ is RANdOmly Drawn from ranges $[0,U]$, rESuLTs are shown in thE inset Of fIg.\[FIG2\]c vErsUs $U$. At Fermi EnErgy $E=0$ (BLue dottED lINE), $t(E,0) = 2$ uNTil $U$ reaches $\siM 0.2$eV at which $T(e,0)$ SubStantiAlLy rEDuces (iNset oF FIG.\[fiG2\]c). By investiGatiNg which atOmic orBItals coNTribute To the sCatTerIng wAVe FuNctIoNS anD AlSo tHE reAl space Wf1/Wf2, tHe scaTterING STateS arE fouNd to bE unconfined frOm tHe suRFacEs at tHis vaLue oF $U$, NamelY the heLical StAtes are destroyeD. WheN $U$ increasEs fUrTheR, $T(e,0)$ osciLLates bY thE raNdom disOrder scATteRiNG COnFigurations. At higheR eNERgIes, we fouNd that THe HeLIcal edge StAteS are MUCh morE robUSt. for instaNce, at $E=0.1$Ev (sOlId curve In The insEt Of FIg.\[fIg2\]c), $T(E,0)\APproX 2$ until $u \sim 0.5$eV. ThIs is rEAsonable since eLEctrons with hiGHeR ENeRGy arE leSs affected bY potENtiaL perTUrBatIOns.

So Far we FoCUsED on transmission in thE x-DirectIon, $T(E,K_y=0)$. For the film, a 2d transmissION $t(E)$ is obtaIned BY iNTegrating $T(E,k_y)$ oVer $k_y$, Which gives THe 2D conduCtancE $G(E) = T(E)\timEs G_o$ where $g_O\Equiv e^2/h$. THe iNseT of fig.\[FIG2\]b Plots $G(E)$. For eneRGIes oUtSide the BulK gap, e.g. $E < 0$ Or $E \GtrSim 0.27$EV, bUlK propagatIng modes PaRtIcIpAte TransPOrt and thErEfoRe $g$ deCreasES accorDing tO the InCrEAse Of the diSOrDER. WitHiN tHe gaP, $G(E)$ ChAnges NeglIGibLy for weAk disordeR C4 aND C6, buT mOrE signifIcantly in stroNg Disorder C5 aNd c7. In ContraST To $
 interesting to note thateven thoug h $\d elt a V $is a dded  only in regio n  C,the scattering states(WF1,  W F 2) a r eaffec ted ina ll r egi on sL,C, an d R r efl ectingthe scatte rin gprocesses.
T ocorrelatethe  robustnessoftransm is sio n  $T(E ,0) $ aga inst t h e stre ngth of t he disord e r poten t i al  $\d elta V$, we havec al c ulated configu ration  C 8  ( s e e T abl e-\[tab1\] )where $\delta V$ i s  ra n domly drawn f rom ranges$ [0, U]$, r es ult s  are s hownin the  inset of F ig.\ [fig2\]cversus $U$. At Fermi e nergy$E= 0$(blu e  d ot ted  l i ne) ,  $ T(E , 0)= 2$ unt il  $ U$ re ache s $ \ sim0.2 $eVat wh ich $T(E,0)$sub stan t ial ly re duces  (in se t ofFig.\[ fig2\ ]c ). By investiga ting  which at omi corb it als c o ntribu tetothe sca ttering wav ef u n ct ions and also there a l  s pace WF1 /WF2,t he  s c attering  s tat es a r e  foun d to be  unconfi ned fr o mth e surfa ce s at t hi s v alu e of$ U$,namely  the hel icals tates are dest r oyed. When $U $  i n c re a sesfur ther, $T(E, 0)$o scil late s  b y t h e ran dom d is o rd e r scattering config ur ations . Athigher energi es, we fou n d that the  hel i ca l  edge states a re mu ch more ro b ust. For  inst ance, at  $E=0.1$e V (solid c urv e i n t hei n se t of Fig.\[fi g 2 \]c) ,$T(E,0) \ap prox 2$  un til  $U  \s im  0.5$eV.This isre as on ab lesince electron swit hhig her e n ergy a re le ss a ff ec t edby pote n ti a l  per tu rb atio ns. 
So fa r we foc used on  transmis sio n  inth ex-direc tion, $T(E,k_ y= 0)$. For t he  fi lm, a2 D  transmi ssion $T(E)$ is obtaine d  by int egr ating  $T( E,k_y)$ o ver  $k_y$ , w h ich gi ves th e 2Dco ndu c t ance$ G (E ) =  T (E)\timesG _ o$where  $ G_o\ equiv e ^2/h$. The inset o f  Fi g.\[fig2\]b p lot s $G ( E )$ . F o re ner gi e s o u t side the bulk g ap, e.g. $ E<  0 $ or $E \g t rsi m0.27$eV , bulkpropa g ating m odes part icipate t ra nspo r t  an d therefor e $G$ de creases a c cordi n gto th e i ncreas eofthe d isorde r . W ithin  the g ap , $G(E )$ ch an ges negl igibly for weak disorde r C4 a nd C6 , b ut more s ign i fic antly instro ng disorde r C 5 a nd C7 . I n  cont rast to  $
 interesting_to note_that even though $\delta_V$ is_added_only in_region_C, the scattering_states (WF1, WF2)_are affected in all_regions L, C,_and_R reflecting the scattering processes.

To correlate the robustness of transmission $T(E,0)$ against the strength_of_the disorder_potential_$\delta_V$, we have calculated configuration_C8 (see Table-\[tab1\]) where $\delta_V$ is_randomly drawn from ranges $[0,U]$, results are shown_in_the inset of_Fig.\[fig2\]c versus $U$. At Fermi energy $E=0$ (blue dotted_line), $T(E,0) = 2$ until $U$_reaches $\sim 0.2$eV_at_which_$T(E,0)$ substantially reduces (inset_of Fig.\[fig2\]c). By investigating which atomic_orbitals contribute to the scattering wave_functions and also the real space WF1/WF2,_the scattering states are found to_be unconfined from the surfaces_at this_value of $U$, namely the_helical states are_destroyed. When_$U$ increases further,_$T(E,0)$ oscillates by the random disorder_scattering configurations. At_higher energies, we found that the_helical_edge states are_much_more_robust. For_instance, at $E=0.1$eV_(solid_curve in_the_inset of Fig.\[fig2\]c), $T(E,0)\approx 2$ until_$U_\sim 0.5$eV. This is reasonable since electrons_with higher energy are_less_affected by potential perturbations.

So_far we focused on transmission_in the x-direction, $T(E,k_y=0)$. For the_film, a_2D transmission_$T(E)$ is obtained by integrating $T(E,k_y)$ over $k_y$, which gives the_2D conductance $G(E) = T(E)\times G_o$_where $G_o\equiv e^2/h$. The_inset of_Fig.\[fig2\]b_plots $G(E)$. For_energies_outside the_bulk gap, e.g. $E < 0$ or_$E \gtrsim_0.27$eV, bulk propagating modes participate transport_and therefore $G$ decreases_according_to the increase of the disorder._Within the gap, $G(E)$ changes negligibly_for weak disorder C4 and_C6,_but_more significantly in strong disorder_C5 and C7. In contrast to_$