Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

One-dimensional proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime


Extensive efforts have been undertaken to combine superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect so that Cooper-pair transport between superconducting electrodes in Josephson junctions is mediated by one-dimensional edge states1,2,3,4,5,6. This interest has been motivated by prospects of finding new physics, including topologically protected quasiparticles7,8,9, but also extends into metrology and device applications10,11,12,13. So far it has proven challenging to achieve detectable supercurrents through quantum Hall conductors2,3,6. Here we show that domain walls in minimally twisted bilayer graphene14,15,16,17,18 support exceptionally robust proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime, allowing Josephson junctions to operate in fields close to the upper critical field of superconducting electrodes. The critical current is found to be non-oscillatory and practically unchanging over the entire range of quantizing fields, with its value being limited by the quantum conductance of ballistic, strictly one-dimensional, electronic channels residing within the domain walls. The system described is unique in its ability to support Andreev bound states at quantizing fields and offers many interesting directions for further exploration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Josephson junctions incorporating domain walls in MTGBs.
Fig. 2: Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime for different numbers of domain walls.
Fig. 3: Fabry–Pérot oscillations in the supercurrent provided by a single domain wall.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The original data files that support the findings of this study are available at (ref. 52) and from J.B.


  1. Eroms, J., Weiss, D., De Boeck, J., Borghs, G. & Zülicke, U. Andreev reflection at high magnetic fields: evidence for electron and hole transport in edge states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 107001 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amet, F. et al. Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime. Science 352, 966–969 (2016).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee, G.-H. et al. Inducing superconducting correlation in quantum Hall edge states. Nat. Phys. 13, 693–698 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sahu, M. R. et al. Inter-Landau-level Andreev reflection at the Dirac point in a graphene quantum Hall state coupled to a NbSe2 superconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086809 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao, L. et al. Interference of chiral Andreev edge states. Nat. Phys. 16, 862–867 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vignaud, H. et al. Evidence for chiral supercurrent in quantum Hall Josephson junctions. Nature 624, 545–550 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bretheau, L. et al. Exciting Andreev pairs in a superconducting atomic contact. Nature 499, 312–315 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alicea, J. New directions in the pursuit of Majorana fermions in solid state systems. Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lutchyn, R. M. et al. Majorana zero modes in superconductor–semiconductor heterostructures. Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 52–68 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bezryadin, A., Lau, C. N. & Tinkham, M. Quantum suppression of superconductivity in ultrathin nanowires. Nature 404, 971–974 (2000).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mooij, J. E. & Nazarov, Y. V. Superconducting nanowires as quantum phase-slip junctions. Nat. Phys. 2, 169–172 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Astafiev, O. V. et al. Coherent quantum phase slip. Nature 484, 355–358 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shaikhaidarov, R. S. et al. Quantized current steps due to the ac coherent quantum phase-slip effect. Nature 608, 45–49 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang, S. et al. Topologically protected helical states in minimally twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 037702 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoo, H. et al. Atomic and electronic reconstruction at the van der Waals interface in twisted bilayer graphene. Nat. Mater. 18, 448–453 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. San-Jose, P. & Prada, E. Helical networks in twisted bilayer graphene under interlayer bias. Phys. Rev. B 88, 121408 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ju, L. et al. Topological valley transport at bilayer graphene domain walls. Nature 520, 650–655 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Alden, J. S. et al. Strain solitons and topological defects in bilayer graphene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11256–11260 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lau, C. N., Markovic, N., Bockrath, M., Bezryadin, A. & Tinkham, M. Quantum phase slips in superconducting nanowires. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217003 (2001).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ben Shalom, M. et al. Quantum oscillations of the critical current and high-field superconducting proximity in ballistic graphene. Nat. Phys. 12, 318–322 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei, M. T. et al. Chiral quasiparticle tunneling between quantum Hall edges in proximity with a superconductor. Phys. Rev. B 100, 121403 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Seredinski, A. et al. Quantum Hall–based superconducting interference device. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw8693 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Seredinski, A. et al. Supercurrent in graphene Josephson junctions with narrow trenches in the quantum Hall regime. MRS Adv. 3, 2855–2864 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Indolese, D. I. et al. Compact SQUID realized in a double-layer graphene heterostructure. Nano Lett. 20, 7129–7135 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Calado, V. E. et al. Ballistic Josephson junctions in edge-contacted graphene. Nat. Nanotech. 10, 761–764 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Efimkin, D. K. & MacDonald, A. H. Helical network model for twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 98, 035404 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rickhaus, P. et al. Transport through a network of topological channels in twisted bilayer graphene. Nano Lett. 18, 6725–6730 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xu, S. G. et al. Giant oscillations in a triangular network of one-dimensional states in marginally twisted graphene. Nat. Commun. 10, 4008 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Enaldiev, V. V., Moulsdale, C., Geim, A. K. & Fal’ko, V. I. Non-chiral one-dimensional sates propagating inside AB/BA domain walls in bilayer graphene. Preprint at (2023).

  30. Geisenhof, F. R. et al. Interplay between topological valley and quantum Hall edge transport. Nat. Commun. 13, 4187 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Borzenets, I. V. et al. Ballistic graphene Josephson junctions from the short to the long junction regimes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 237002 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bardeen, J. & Johnson, J. L. Josephson current flow in pure superconducting-normal-superconducting junctions. Phys. Rev. B 5, 72 (1972).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kurilovich, V. D. & Glazman, L. I. Criticality in the crossed Andreev reflection of a quantum Hall edge. Phys. Rev. X 13, 031027 (2023).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Li, C. et al. Magnetic field resistant quantum interferences in Josephson junctions based on bismuth nanowires. Phys. Rev. B 90, 245427 (2014).

  35. Murani, A. et al. Ballistic edge states in Bismuth nanowires revealed by SQUID interferometry. Nat. Commun. 8, 15941 (2017).

  36. Saito, Y., Ge, J., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T. & Young, A. F. Independent superconductors and correlated insulators in twisted bilayer graphene. Nat. Phys. 16, 926–930 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stepanov, P. et al. Untying the insulating and superconducting orders in magic-angle graphene. Nature 583, 375–378 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lane, T. L. M. et al. Ballistic electron channels including weakly protected topological states in delaminated bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 97, 045301 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. McGilly, L. J. et al. Visualization of moiré superlattices. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 580–584 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hesp, N. C. H. et al. Nano-imaging photoresponse in a moiré unit cell of minimally twisted bilayer graphene. Nat. Commun. 12, 1640 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Luo, Y. et al. In situ nanoscale imaging of moiré superlattices in twisted van der Waals heterostructures. Nat. Commun. 11, 4209 (2020).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sunku, S. S. et al. Photonic crystals for nano-light in moiré graphene superlattices. Science 362, 1153–1156 (2018).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Williams, J. R., Abanin, D. A., DiCarlo, L., Levitov, L. S. & Marcus, C. M. Quantum Hall conductance of two-terminal graphene devices. Phys. Rev. B 80, 045408 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Feldman, B. E., Martin, J. & Yacoby, A. Broken-symmetry states and divergent resistance in suspended bilayer graphene. Nat. Phys. 5, 889–893 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Khaymovich, I. M., Chtchelkatchev, N. M., Shereshevskii, I. A. & Mel’nikov, A. S. Andreev transport in two-dimensional normal-superconducting systems in strong magnetic fields. Europhys. Lett. 91, 17005 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ma, M. & Zyuzin, A. Y. Josephson effect in the quantum Hall regime. Europhys. Lett. 21, 941 (1993).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Gamayun, O., Hutasoit, J. A. & Cheianov, V. V. Two-terminal transport along a proximity-induced superconducting quantum Hall edge. Phys. Rev. B 96, 241104 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Tinkham, M. Introduction to Superconductivity 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1996).

  49. Golubov, A. A., Kupriyanov, M. Y. & Il’Ichev, E. The current-phase relation in Josephson junctions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Shapiro, S. Josephson currents in superconducting tunneling: the effect of microwaves and other observations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 80 (1963).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Russer, P. Influence of microwave radiation on current–voltage characteristic of superconducting weak links. J. Appl. Phys. 43, 2008–2010 (1972).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Barrier, J. Replication data for: One-dimensional proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime. Zenodo (2024).

Download references


We acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council (Grant VANDER), the Lloyd’s Register Foundation, Horizon 2020 Graphene Flagship Core3 Project and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC; Grant Nos EP/V007033/1 and EP/S030719/1). J.B. acknowledges support from the EPSRC (Doctoral Prize fellowship). R.K.K. acknowledges the EU Horizon programme (Grants 754510, 893030) and the FLAG-ERA programme (PhotoTBG). L.I.G. was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant DMR-2002275) and the Office of Naval Research (Award N00014-22-1-2764).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.K.G. and J.B. initiated and led the project. N.X. and P.K. fabricated the devices with help from L.H. Domain walls in MTGBs were imaged by R.K.K., F.H.L.K. and R.V.G. J.B. carried out the electrical measurements with help from M.K., E.N., A.I.B. and J.R.P. J.B. and A.K.G. analysed the data with help from I.V.G., L.I.G., J.R.P. and V.I.F. C.M., V.V.E., L.I.G. and V.I.F. provided theoretical support. K.W. and T.T. supplied quality hBN crystals. J.B., I.V.G. and A.K.G. wrote the manuscript with contributions from N.X. and V.I.F. All authors contributed to discussions.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Julien Barrier, Na Xin or A. K. Geim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Ivan Borzenets and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Josephson junctions with AB/BA domain walls.

(a) Piezo-force micrograph showing domains in an MTGB before its encapsulation in hBN. The blue and green triangles indicate two neighboring regions with AB and BA stacking. (b) Photocurrent map for one of our fully encapsulated MTGB stacks that was used to make the studied Josephson junctions (photoexcitation energy of 188 meV, n ≈ 1012 cm−2). Negative photocurrents are shown in blue, positive in red, and the white stripes in between reveal domain walls40. (c) Photocurrent map of a chosen domain walls with an overlaid design for superconducting electrodes, which is shown by the shaded red areas. (d) Optical micrograph of the same region as in panel c after depositing the electrodes. (e) Atomic-force microscopy (AFM) image of one of the studied Josephson junctions. The darker areas correspond to superconducting electrodes. (f) Schematic of our ‘edgeless’ devices where MTGBs extended beyond the width W of Josephson junctions to avoid the presence of graphene edges in between the electrodes (compare with our ‘edged’ devices in Fig. 1a of the main text). The greenish triangles represent different AB and BA domains.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Normal-state transport.

(a) Typical Landau fan diagram for our MTGB devices. This particular junction contained a single domain wall and had L ≈ 150 nm. The filling factors ν indicated by the dashed lines were calculated using the known capacitance to the back gate; T = 10 K. (b) Two-probe conductance at the neutrality point as a function of B for different NDW. For all the plotted junctions, L was between 150 and 200 nm; T = 10 K. (c) Resistance as a function of gate-induced n at different T for two representative junctions with 0 and 1 domain walls at 14 T (L ≈ 200 and 150 nm, respectively). Both junctions were ‘edged’. (d) Corresponding conductance at ν = 0 (after subtracting relatively small contact resistances).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Supercurrent carried by AB/BA domain walls.

(a) Fraunhofer pattern typical for MTGB junctions. The shown Josephson junction was edgeless and contained 15 ± 3 domain walls. Measurements were done using steps in B of 60 µT. White curve: standard Fraunhofer dependence Ic(B) calculated using the critical current at zero B and the apparent period for the first few oscillations. The deviations from the standard behavior are caused by ballistic transport of electrons and holes forming Andreev bound states20,25. (b) Differential resistance of the same junction in quantizing fields. For both (a) and (b): T ≈ 50 mK, n ≈ 2 × 1012 cm−2, Iac = 5 nA. (c) Critical current for different NDW (B = 3 T, electron doping of ≈3 × 1012 cm−2, T ≈ 50 mK in all cases). Blue symbols, edged junctions; orange, edgeless ones. The dashed line is the best linear fit. The horizontal error bars are caused by uncertainty in estimating the number of domain walls within the Josephson junctions. The vertical bars appear because Ic rapidly fluctuated with changing B and oscillated with n (Extended Data Figs. 4, 7; Fig. 3b of the main text) so that we plotted its rms values. (d) Same as in panel c but normalized by the number of domain walls.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Superconductivity in Josephson junctions with multiple domain walls.

(a and b) Differential resistance for junctions with a few (estimated as 2 or 3) and many (16 ± 3) domain walls, respectively. Iac = 5 and 2 nA; n ≈ 2 and 3 × 1012 cm−2, respectively. T ≈ 50 mK. Both junctions were edgeless. The white curves in the bottom halves mark the boundaries of the zero-resistance state. The red curves in the top halves, the critical current. The step size in B was 10 mT.

Extended Data Fig. 5 No supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime in reference devices.

Left column, schematics of Josephson junctions. Right column, corresponding differential resistance maps at high electron doping n ≈ 3 × 1012cm−2 and L ≈ 200 nm for all the panels. Red curves, critical current. (a) Junction made from Bernal bilayer graphene. W ≈ 1 μm, Iac = 5 nA, T ≈ 50 mK, ΔIdc = 1 nA. (b) Junction with a wrinkle formed in monolayer graphene. The wrinkle’s full width was 100 nm as measured by AFM. W ≈ 1 µm, Iac = 7 nA, T ≈ 50 mK, ΔIdc = 15 nA. (c) Monolayer graphene with a very narrow slit. Its width estimated by AFM was <10 nm. W ≈ 4 µm, Iac = 5 nA, T ≈ 1 K, ΔIdc = 1 nA. The junction in panel b was edgeless; panels a and c show edged Josephson junctions.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Differential resistance maps for another junction with a single domain wall.

(a) Map over a large interval of B (composed of two parts where the white gap indicates no data taken). Shown is an edged junction with L ≈ 150 nm and W ≈ 0.5 µm. Red curve, critical current. The digital noise is caused by finite steps in current: ΔIdc = 3.3 and 1.3 nA below and above 3 T, respectively. Step size in B, 5 mT. (b and c) Detailed maps around 3 and 5 T, respectively. Step size in B, 0.5 mT. ΔIdc = 0.6 and 0.3 nA for panels b and c, respectively. For all the panels, T ≈ 50 mK, n ≈ 1.7 × 1012cm−2, Iac = 2 nA. Same color scales for panels a and b.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Vortices affect the critical current in the quantum Hall regime.

Differential resistance maps for increasing (a) and decreasing (b) magnetic field in steps of 10 mT. Same device as in Fig. 1 of the main text. T ≈ 50 mK, n ≈ 2.1 × 1012cm−2, Iac = 5 nA. Same color scale as in Fig. 1d of the main text.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Temperature dependence of proximity superconductivity in zero and quantizing fields.

(a and c) Differential resistance maps dV/dI(Idc, T) at 0 and 3 T, respectively. (b and d) Examples of dV/dI for selected temperatures (cross-sections from the corresponding maps). White dashed curve in panel a: fit to eq. S1 above 2 K. Data are for a Josephson junction with a single domain wall, L ≈ 200 nm, n ≈ 2 × 1012 cm−2, Iac = 5 nA.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Shapiro steps in the quantum Hall regime.

(a) Voltage vs current characteristics as a function of RF power. For clarity, the curves are shifted horizontally by 10 nA each. The power P was increased in steps that corresponded to Vrf increasing from 0 to 26 µV. Shown is the same one-domain wall junction as in Fig. 1 of the main text; frf = 3.3 GHz, B = 3 T, no Iac applied; n ≈ 1.8 × 1012 cm−2 which corresponds to a maximum in Ic (Fig. 3b of the main text). Inset: ΔV as a function of the RF frequency. Green line: ΔV= ϕ0frf as per eq. S2. (b) dV/dI(Idc) with varying Vrf. The same junction and conditions as for panel a; Iac = 5 nA. Color scale: indigo to yellow is 0 to 480 Ω. (c) Same as in panel b but for n ≈ 1.7 × 1012 cm−2 which corresponds to a minimum in Ic(n); frf = 3.52 GHz. Color scale: indigo to yellow is 70 to 440 Ω. (d) Similar map for a Josephson junction with many domain walls at B = 5 T. NDW = 9 ± 2, L ≈ 200 nm, W ≈ 3.5 µm, n ≈ 2.7 × 1012 cm−2, frf = 3.0 GHz, Iac = 2 nA. Color scale: indigo to yellow is 0 to 70 Ω. (e) Width of Shapiro steps extracted from the map of panel d. The pink curves in panels b-d and the black curves in panel e are the fits by the corresponding Bessel functions as per eq. S3. For all panels, T ≈ 50 mK.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Fabry-Pérot oscillations in the supercurrent provided by 1D states inside domain walls.

(a and b) Differential resistance maps at high and low dc biases, respectively. In both cases, Iac = 5 nA. The white dashed lines indicate the filling factors ν = 4, 8, 12,… expected for Bernal bilayer graphene. The dotted curve in panel b indicates the quantum Hall regime boundary, 2rc = L. (c) Oscillations in the critical current. Values of Ic are obtained from IV curves that were recorded in small steps of ~3 × 1010 cm−2 in electron density and steps in B of 0.5 T. All the measurements were carried out at T ≈ 50 mK using junctions with a single domain wall and L ≈ 200 nm.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains details regarding the theory of one-dimensional electronic states inside AB/BA domain walls, additional references and Supplementary Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barrier, J., Kim, M., Kumar, R.K. et al. One-dimensional proximity superconductivity in the quantum Hall regime. Nature 628, 741–745 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing