Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Quantum Hall Andreev Conversion in Graphene Nanostructures

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For a partially transparent graphene–superconductor interface in the quantum Hall regime, intervalley scattering at the corners of the interface produces substantial Andreev conversion, and two such corners make the conversion probability…

desk verdict Sharp-corner mechanism is solid and new; the 'even when rounded' claim in the abstract is the one load-bearing step that needs either a simulation or softer wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02114 v1 pith:EEV6V6EJ submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-con

Alexey Bondarev , William H. Klein , Harold U. Baranger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con PACS 73.43.-f74.45.+c73.63.-b81.05.ue
keywords quantumHalleffectgrapheneAndreevconversionsuperconductorintervalleyscatteringlowestLandaulevelnanostructureinterference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that in clean graphene–superconductor nanostructures in the quantum Hall regime, the amount of electrons converted into holes at the superconducting contact is governed by valley scattering at the corners of the interface, not only by the edge type. The authors study the lowest Landau level with a tight-binding model and show that when the interface is only partially transparent, the two electron–hole hybrid modes along the interface are no longer valley-degenerate, and sharp or even rounded corners can scatter an electron between valleys. If both ends of the interface contain such intervalley-scattering corners, the two modes interfere like a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, making the Andreev conversion probability $P_{he}(\mu_{gr})$ oscillate as the graphene chemical potential is tuned. This matters because it overturns the simple rule that Andreev conversion in this setting is decided solely by the type of graphene edge, and because the effect survives realistic partial transparency.

What carries the argument

The carriers of the argument are the two chiral electron–hole hybrid modes that live along the graphene–superconductor interface within the superconducting gap, together with the corners of the nanostructure. Near each valley ($K$ and $K'$) the interface supports one propagating hybrid mode; at partial transparency these modes are not degenerate, so they accumulate a phase difference as they propagate along the interface. A corner is intervalley-scattering when the graphene edge changes its effective zigzag type across the corner (for example, a 60-degree turn), forcing the edge state to switch valleys. Such a corner acts as a beam splitter when placed at the entrance or exit of the interface, and the interplay of the two modes along the interface forms an interferometer: scattering at one corner populates both modes and scattering at the other recombines them, producing oscillations in the Andreev conversion probability.

What would settle it

Measure the downstream conductance (or Andreev conversion probability) as a function of gate voltage in a clean zigzag trapezoid graphene–superconductor junction with interface transmission around 20–30%: the paper predicts rapid periodic oscillations in $P_{he}$ across the lowest Landau level whenever both interface corners cause intervalley scattering. Alternatively, repeat the tight-binding calculation with a finite magnetic-field penetration depth in the superconductor and check whether the two hybrid modes remain non-degenerate and the corner-induced oscillations survive; if the oscillations disappear, the central interference claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that partial transparency of the graphene–superconductor interface changes the physics qualitatively. At full transparency the scattering state connects smoothly to a single electron–hole hybrid mode, and Andreev conversion is either complete or absent according to the Akhmerov–Beenakker rule comparing the effective zigzag type of the incoming and outgoing edges. At partial transparency, the two hybrid interfacial modes have different valley content and different propagation phases; a corner that changes the effective zigzag sublattice (a 60-degree corner in the zigzag case) forces intervalley scattering, which both populates both modes and couples strongly to the superconductor, producing what the paper calls Andreev intervalley scattering. With one such corner the conversion probability varies monotonically; with two, the modes interfere and $P_{he}(\mu_{gr})$ oscillates rapidly. The paper further shows that the same rule applies to rounded corners, since almost all graphene edges behave as effective zigzag edges, and that chiral Andreev conversion in the quantum Hall regime is considerably more robust to reduced transparency than the zero-field Blonder–Tinkham–Klapwijk result.

Load-bearing premise

The main load-bearing approximation is that the magnetic field drops abruptly to zero inside the superconductor, with the vector potential chosen as $\mathbf{A}(x,y)=By\,\hat{x}\,\theta(-y)$, so that a clean Landau-level description applies; the paper notes this is not the situation in recent experiments, where field penetration and Meissner screening are present.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With partial transparency, the value of $P_{he}$ is no longer pinned to 0 or 1 by edge type; corner geometry and interface quality control the conversion, so the simple edge-type rule applies only to nearly fully transparent contacts.
  • In structures where both ends of the superconducting interface are intervalley-scattering corners, the device acts as a Mach–Zehnder interferometer: $P_{he}(\mu_{gr})$ oscillates, and the oscillations survive rounding of the corners.
  • Chiral Andreev conversion in the quantum Hall regime remains substantial for interface transparencies as low as roughly 10 percent, whereas zero-field Andreev reflection falls rapidly with transparency; devices should therefore tolerate poor-quality contacts.
  • A straight, smoothly connected interface with no intervalley corners gives $P_{he}=0$ even at partial transparency, identifying corner design as a practical on/off switch for downstream Andreev conductance.
  • Clean low-disorder graphene–superconductor interfaces, such as those that graphene–transition-metal-dichalcogenide heterostructures may provide, should display these corner-controlled oscillations directly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If corner-induced intervalley scattering is as strong as the paper suggests, the same geometry should also shape the supercurrent of quantum Hall Josephson junctions, where the two hybrid modes carry the pairing correlations; a corner-controlled phase shift would appear as a magneto-oscillation distinct from the usual Fraunhofer pattern.
  • Because the effect depends only on the effective zigzag type of the edges, atomically controlled edge fabrication could be used to permanently set a device to either convert or not convert, turning the geometric classification into a design rule.
  • The robustness with respect to transparency suggests that part of the Andreev signal seen in experiments on disordered interfaces could be corner-induced rather than disorder-induced, a distinction that the clean-limit calculations make testable by comparing devices with deliberately different corner geometries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Andreev conversion in clean graphene nanostructures in the quantum Hall regime coupled to a superconductor, using tight-binding Bogoliubov–de Gennes calculations implemented with Kwant. The central object is the probability Phe that an incoming electron from the upstream quantum Hall edge exits as a hole on the downstream edge, computed for the lowest Landau level in several zigzag and non-zigzag geometries. For fully transparent interfaces the authors recover the Akhmerov–Beenakker valley rule Phe = 0 or 1 depending on the edge types connected by the interface. For partially transparent interfaces they find that intervalley scattering at sharp corners can produce substantial Andreev conversion even when the electron-hole hybridization along the interface is weak, and that when both entrance and exit corners cause intervalley scattering, the two hybrid modes interfere, giving oscillations in Phe as a function of graphene chemical potential. They argue from boundary-condition considerations that this behavior extends to edges at arbitrary angles and to rounded corners. They also compare Andreev conversion as a function of interface transparency with the zero-field Blonder–Tinkham–Klapwijk result, finding that chiral quantum Hall Andreev conversion is considerably more robust and that it depends on the graphene filling.

Significance. The sharp-corner results are convincing and constitute the solid core of the paper. The tight-binding calculations are checked against two independent analytic limits: the B = 0 curve agrees remarkably well with the BTK expression, and the full-transparency limit reproduces the Akhmerov–Beenakker edge-type rule. The dense- and sparse-stitching calculations in the main text and the Supplemental Material cross-validate the conclusions with respect to the microscopic interface model, and the deposited data are a useful resource. If the rounded-corner generalization is confirmed, the paper would provide a concrete mechanism for robust Andreev conversion and disorder-free interference in quantum Hall–superconductor devices, which is directly relevant to recent downstream-resistance experiments. The main gap is that the rounded-corner claim, which appears prominently in the abstract, is not directly demonstrated by the numerical simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI D] The abstract states that intervalley scattering can occur at the corners 'even when rounded,' but this claim is not supported by any direct calculation in the manuscript. Every computed Phe(µgr) curve and scattering-state image (Figs. 2, 10, 11, 15, S2–S5) uses sharp corners. Section VI D extends to rounded corners through a qualitative argument: a locally armchair interval along a smooth corner is said to act as an intervalley-scattering corner, and footnote [79] introduces a decay length d without evaluating it or relating it to the corner radius or to the magnetic length. For a rounded corner with radius R much larger than the lattice constant, the edge direction changes over a length of order sqrt(R a) near the armchair direction, and the lowest-Landau-level edge state may follow the boundary adiabatically, making the intervalley-scattering amplitude much smaller than at a sharp corner. Since the central new claim of interference of hybrid modes 'even in the absence of disorder' depends on this rounded-corner generalization, I request either direct tight-binding simulations of rounded or smooth corners as a function of R, or a quantitative estimate of the intervalley-scattering amplitude of a locally armchair segment, before this claim can be considered demonstrated.
  2. [Sec. VI C] The general argument for arbitrary-angle sharp corners is built on the boundary-condition result of Ref. [54] for a 'minimal boundary,' a technical requirement that is explicitly set aside in footnote [77]. The numerical examples in Sec. VI B cover only two angle pairs (75°/75° and 45°/75°), so the classification of arbitrary corners as intervalley-scattering or valley-preserving is plausible but not systematically verified, especially for short edge segments or for angles close to the armchair boundary where reduced-zone folding can mix valleys. Because the rounded-corner discussion of Sec. VI D inherits this classification, I would like a statement explaining why the minimal-boundary caveat does not alter the valley assignments used in Eq. (1) and in Sec. VI C, or additional numerical validation for angles near 25° and 35° to test the stability of the classification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I.B] There is a typo in the introduction: 'Andreev refelction' should be 'Andreev reflection'.
  2. [Sec. V.B] The phrase 'as in a Mach-Zender interferometer' should read 'Mach-Zehnder interferometer'.
  3. [Fig. 12] The caption contains the typo 'Zigzag parallelgram'; it should be 'Zigzag parallelogram'.
  4. [Sec. II.A] The abrupt magnetic-field drop at the graphene-superconductor interface is acknowledged as an idealization, but a brief comment on how finite field penetration or Meissner screening would quantitatively modify the e-h skipping-orbit picture would help readers assess experimental applicability.
  5. [Footnote 56] The transparency T is used throughout the paper but is precisely defined only in a footnote; consider moving the definition to the main text in Sec. II or Sec. V.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central Phe predictions are direct tight-binding outputs benchmarked against BTK and Akhmerov-Beenakker; self-citation supplies interpretation, not the result.

full rationale

Score 2 rather than 0 because the paper's premise (i), that partially transparent hybrid modes are not valley degenerate, is taken from the authors' own Ref. [47] rather than rederived here, and that premise is used in the interference explanation. This is nevertheless a normal self-citation and not a circular reduction: Ref. [47] is a separate calculation for an infinite periodic interface with its own numerical content, not a fit to the Phe(mu_gr) curves presented here. The central predictions are independent: full transparency reproduces the external Akhmerov-Beenakker rule Eq. (1), zero-field Phe follows the external BTK curve quantitatively, and the partial-transparency Phe curves are direct tight-binding/Kwant outputs in which no parameter is tuned to the target observable. The transparency T is computed in a separate B=0 two-terminal geometry and then used only as a plotting variable. The rounded-corner claim in Sec. VI D is an extrapolation from the zigzag boundary-condition literature [49,54,55] and does not include a rounded-corner simulation or an estimate of the intervalley-scattering amplitude; footnote [79] introduces a decay length d but leaves it unevaluated. That is a support gap and correctness risk, not circularity. The abrupt-field approximation of Sec. II A is acknowledged as an idealization and is standard in this literature; it would shift quantitative values rather than define the claimed interference into existence. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or fields. Its free parameters are the standard model parameters (tNS, muS, EL, Delta) that are scanned rather than fitted. The load-bearing assumptions are the abrupt-field-drop model and the zigzag-like boundary condition for generic edges, both inherited from earlier literature and flagged in the text.

free parameters (3)
  • tNS/t = Standard values 1.0, 0.6, 0.3, 0.1; also shown in range 0 to 1
    The graphene-superconductor hopping is scanned to vary the interface transparency. It is not fitted to the target observable but is the explored control parameter.
  • muS/t (superconductor chemical potential) = 4.5 (dense) and 5.0 (sparse)
    Chosen close to half filling to give a well-matched high-transparency interface. Not fitted to Phe, but it is a model choice that affects the transparency and hence the results.
  • EL/t and Delta/EL = 0.12 and 0.10
    Standard parameters motivated by experiment and chosen to lie in the hierarchical regime Delta << EL << bandwidth. A specific choice in the model; the paper notes deviation where relevant.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The superconducting pairing potential Delta, the one-body potential U, and the magnetic field B are constant in each material and change abruptly at the interface.
    Invoked in Sec. II A; the B=0 in the superconductor and B constant in graphene is explicitly flagged as not the case in recent experiments.
  • domain assumption Most graphene edges are effectively zigzag, so the boundary condition is effectively psi_A = 0 for |theta| < 30 degrees from zigzag.
    Basis for the arbitrary-angle and rounded-corner generalizations in Secs. VI C and VI D; drawn from Refs. [49,54,55].
  • domain assumption The valley quantum number can be used to label LLL edge states, via sublattice-valley locking.
    Used throughout to interpret scattering states and corners; valid for the LLL in graphene in the absence of intervalley mixing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Hall Andreev Conversion in Graphene Nanostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEV6V6EJ

@misc{pith2026250702114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Hall Andreev Conversion in Graphene Nanostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEV6V6EJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02114}
}
read the original abstract

We study Andreev conversion in clean nanostructures containing an interface between graphene in the quantum Hall (QH) state and a superconductor, focusing on the lowest Landau level. First, several graphene nanostructures formed from zigzag edges with sharp corners are considered using a tight-binding model. We find the scattering state for an electron impinging on the interface from the upstream QH edge state, together with the probability of it exiting as a hole in the downstream QH edge state (Andreev conversion). From these results, we deduce the behavior for edges at an arbitrary angle and for rounded corners. A key issue is whether the graphene-superconductor interface is fully transparent or only partially transparent. For full transparency, we recover previous results. In contrast, interfaces with partial but substantial transparency (well away from the tunneling limit) behave very differently: (i) the hybrid electron-hole interfacial modes are not valley degenerate and (ii) intervalley scattering can occur at the corners, even when rounded. As a result, interference between the two hybrid modes can occur, even in the absence of disorder. Finally, we compare the sensitivity of Andreev conversion to interface transparency in the QH regime to that in the absence of a magnetic field. While the zero-field result closely follows the classic Blonder-Tinkham-Klapwijk relation, Andreev conversion in the QH regime is considerably more robust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Geometry of the nanostructure and interface. Differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a). However, if both interfacial corners cause inter￾valley scattering, interference between the two interfacial modes occurs, and Phe(µgr) oscillates rapidly [panel (b)]. We show how intervalley scattering enables Andreev con￾version despite reduced interface pairing. This Andreev intervalley scattering makes robust interference in clean zigzag nanostructures possible. For smooth or rounded corners, we use the res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Graphene-superconductor interface models: zigzag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The energy spectrum for graphene QH states [electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scattering state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scattering state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Scattering state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Since all four corners are 60◦ , intervalley scatter￾ing occurs at every corner. The change in valley of the propagating electron state at each corner is reflected in the change in sublattice structure: the weight on the A and B sublattice interchange at each corner […
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Scattering state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Detail of the electron component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Dependence of Andreev conversion on interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Scattering state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Andreev conversion probability, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Andreev conversion probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [79]

    For an arbitrary edge, “valley” refers to the Dirac points folded back into the reduced Brillouin zone

    work page

  2. [54]

    A. R. Akhmerov and C. W. J. Beenakker, Boundary con- ditions for Dirac fermions on a terminated honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 77, 085423 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [77]

    D. A. Abanin, P. A. Lee, and L. S. Levitov, Spin-filtered edge states and quantum Hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 176803 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [1]

    P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Al- loys (Perseus Books Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts, 1966)

    1966

  5. [2]

    B. J. van Wees and H. Takayanagi, The superconducting proximity effect in semiconductor-superconductor sys- tems: Ballistic transport, low dimensionality, and sam- ple specific properties, in Mesoscopic Electron Transport, edited by L. L. Sohn, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and G. Sch¨ on (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1997) pp. 469–501

    1997

  6. [3]

    T. M. Klapwijk, Proximity effect from an Andreev per- spective, J. Supercond. 17, 593 (2004)

    2004

  7. [4]

    Asano, Andreev Reflection in Superconducting Junc- tions (Springer, Singapore, 2021)

    Y. Asano, Andreev Reflection in Superconducting Junc- tions (Springer, Singapore, 2021)

    2021

  8. [5]

    F. Wen, J. Shabani, and E. Tutuc, Josephson junction field-effect transistors for Boolean logic cryogenic appli- cations, IEEE Trans. Elec. Dev. 66, 5367 (2019)

    2019

Show all 91 references
  1. [6]

    D. Phan, P. Falthansl-Scheinecker, U. Mishra, W. M. Strickland, D. Langone, J. Shabani, and A. P. Hig- ginbotham, Gate-tunable superconductor-semiconductor parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064032 (2023)

    2023

  2. [7]

    Huang, E

    B. Huang, E. G. Arnault, W. Jung, C. Fried, B. J. Rus- sell, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. A. Henriksen, D. En- glund, G.-H. Lee, and K. C. Fong, Graphene calorimetric single-photon detector (2024), arXiv:2410.22433

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Vignaud, D

    H. Vignaud, D. Perconte, W. Yang, B. Kousar, E. Wag- ner, F. Gay, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Courtois, Z. Han, H. Sellier, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, Evidence for chiral su- percurrent in quantum Hall Josephson junctions, Nature 624, 545 (2023), arXiv:2305.01766

    2023 arXiv

  4. [9]

    L. Zhao, Z. Iftikhar, T. F. Larson, E. G. Arnault, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Amet, and G. Finkel- stein, Loss and decoherence at the quantum Hall- superconductor interface, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 176604 (2023), arXiv:2210.04842

    2023 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Hatefipour, J

    M. Hatefipour, J. J. Cuozzo, I. Levy, W. M. Strick- land, D. Langone, E. Rossi, and J. Shabani, An- dreev reflection of quantum Hall states through a quan- tum point contact, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035430 (2024), arXiv:arXiv:2309.01856

    2024 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Y.-J. Doh, J. A. van Dam, A. L. Roest, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and S. De Franceschi, Tun- 15 able supercurrent through semiconductor nanowires, Sci- ence 309, 272 (2005)

    2005

  7. [12]

    Hatefipour, J

    M. Hatefipour, J. J. Cuozzo, J. Kanter, W. M. Strick- land, C. R. Allemang, T.-M. Lu, E. Rossi, and J. Sha- bani, Induced superconducting pairing in integer quan- tum Hall edge states, Nano Lett. 22, 6173 (2022), arXiv:2108.08899

    2022 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Lee and H.-J

    G.-H. Lee and H.-J. Lee, Proximity coupling in superconductor-graphene heterostructures, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 056502 (2018)

    2018

  9. [14]

    Bocquillon, V

    E. Bocquillon, V. Freulon, F. D. Parmentier, J.-M. Berroir, B. Pla¸ cais, C. Wahl, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, T. Martin, C. Grenier, D. Ferraro, P. Degiovanni, and G. F` eve, Electron quantum optics in ballistic chiral con- ductors, Ann. Physik 526, 1 (2014)

    2014

  10. [15]

    Single-electron control in solid state devices (Special Is- sue), Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) 254, 1770213 (2017)

    2017

  11. [16]

    Chakraborti, C

    H. Chakraborti, C. Gorini, A. Knothe, M.-H. Liu, P. Makk, F. D. Parmentier, D. Perconte, K. Richter, P. Roulleau, B. Sac´ ep´ e, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and W. Yang, Electron wave and quantum optics in graphene, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. 36, 393001 (2024), arXiv:2401.04233

    2024 arXiv

  12. [17]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Chiral topolog- ical superconductor from the quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B 82, 184516 (2010)

    2010

  13. [18]

    Lian, X.-Q

    B. Lian, X.-Q. Sun, A. Vaezi, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Topological quantum computation based on chiral Majo- rana fermions, PNAS 115, 10938 (2018)

    2018

  14. [19]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Colloquium: Andreev reflection and Klein tunneling in graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1337 (2008)

    2008

  15. [20]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, One-dimensional electrical contact to a two-dimensional material, Science 342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  16. [21]

    V. E. Calado, S. Goswami, G. Nanda, M. Diez, A. R. Akhmerov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. M. Klapwijk, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Ballistic Josephson junctions in edge-contacted graphene, Nat. Nano. 10, 761 (2015)

    2015

  17. [22]

    Ben Shalom, M

    M. Ben Shalom, M. J. Zhu, V. I. Fal’ko, A. Mishchenko, A. V. Kretinin, K. S. Novoselov, C. R. Woods, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, A. K. Geim, and J. R. Prance, Quan- tum oscillations of the critical current and high-field su- perconducting proximity in ballistic graphene, Nat....

    2016

  18. [23]

    I. V. Borzenets, F. Amet, C. T. Ke, A. W. Draelos, M. T. Wei, A. Seredinski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Bomze, M. Yamamoto, S. Tarucha, and G. Finkel- stein, Ballistic graphene Josephson junctions from the short to the long junction regimes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 237002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [24]

    J. Park, J. H. Lee, G.-H. Lee, Y. Takane, K.-I. Imura, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and H.-J. Lee, Short ballis- tic Josephson coupling in planar graphene junctions with inhomogeneous carrier doping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 077701 (2018)

    2018

  20. [25]

    F. Amet, C. T. Ke, I. V. Borzenets, J. Wang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, R. S. Deacon, M. Yamamoto, Y. Bomze, S. Tarucha, and G. Finkelstein, Supercurrent in the quantum Hall regime, Science 352, 966 (2016)

    2016

  21. [26]

    G.-H. Park, M. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and H.-J. Lee, Propagation of superconducting coherence via chiral quantum-Hall edge channels, Sci. Rep. 7, 10953 (2017)

    2017

  22. [27]

    M. R. Sahu, X. Liu, A. K. Paul, S. Das, P. Raychaud- huri, J. K. Jain, and A. Das, Inter-Landau-level Andreev reflection at the Dirac point in a graphene quantum Hall state coupled to a NbSe 2 superconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086809 (2018)

    2018

  23. [28]

    Lee, K.-F

    G.-H. Lee, K.-F. Huang, D. K. Efetov, D. S. Wei, S. Hart, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Yacoby, and P. Kim, In- ducing superconducting correlation in quantum Hall edge states, Nat. Phys. 13, 693 (2017)

    2017

  24. [29]

    L. Zhao, E. G. Arnault, A. Bondarev, A. Seredinski, T. F. Q. Larson, A. W. Draelos, H. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Amet, H. U. Baranger, and G. Finkel- stein, Interference of chiral Andreev edge states, Nat. Phys. 16, 862 (2020), arXiv:1907.01722

    2020 arXiv

  25. [30]

    M. R. Sahu, A. K. Paul, J. Sutradhar, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Singh, S. Mukerjee, S. Banerjee, and A. Das, Quantized conductance with nonzero shot noise as a signature of Andreev edge state, Phys. Rev. B 104, L081404 (2021), arXiv:2105.13070

    2021 arXiv

  26. [31]

    L. Zhao, E. G. Arnault, T. F. Q. Larson, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, F. Amet, and G. Finkelstein, Non- local transport measurements in hybrid quantum Hall– superconducting devices, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115416 (2024), arXiv:2310.02910

    2024 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Ma and A

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

    1993

  28. [33]

    Takagaki, Transport properties of semiconductor- superconductor junctions in quantizing magnetic fields, Phys

    Y. Takagaki, Transport properties of semiconductor- superconductor junctions in quantizing magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 57, 4009 (1998)

    1998

  29. [34]

    Hoppe, U

    H. Hoppe, U. Z¨ ulicke, and G. Sch¨ on, Andreev reflection in strong magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1804 (2000)

    2000

  30. [35]

    Giazotto, M

    F. Giazotto, M. Governale, U. Z¨ ulicke, and F. Bel- tram, Andreev reflection and cyclotron motion at superconductor–normal-metal interfaces, Phys. Rev. B 72, 054518 (2005)

    2005

  31. [36]

    A. R. Akhmerov and C. W. J. Beenakker, Detection of valley polarization in graphene by a superconducting con- tact, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 157003 (2007)

    2007

  32. [37]

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

    2010

  33. [38]

    Stone and Y

    M. Stone and Y. Lin, Josephson currents in quantum Hall devices, Phys. Rev. B 83, 224501 (2011)

    2011

  34. [39]

    J. A. M. van Ostaay, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Spin-triplet supercurrent carried by quantum Hall edge states through a Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. B 83, 195441 (2011)

    2011

  35. [40]

    B. Lian, J. Wang, and S.-C. Zhang, Edge-state- induced Andreev oscillation in quantum anomalous Hall insulator-superconductor junctions, Phys. Rev. B 93, 161401 (2016)

    2016

  36. [41]

    Gamayun, J

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

    2017

  37. [42]

    Peralta Gavensky, G

    L. Peralta Gavensky, G. Usaj, and C. A. Balseiro, Nonequilibrium edge transport in quantum Hall based Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024527 (2021), arXiv: 2010.13805

    2021 arXiv

  38. [43]

    A. B. Michelsen, P. Recher, B. Braunecker, and T. L. Schmidt, Supercurrent-enabled Andreev reflection in a chiral quantum Hall edge state, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013066 16 (2023), arXiv:2203.13384

    2023 arXiv

  39. [44]

    David, J

    A. David, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Geometrical effects on the downstream conductance in quantum- Hall–superconductor hybrid systems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125416 (2023), arXiv:2210.16867

    2023 arXiv

  40. [45]

    Khrapai, Quantum Hall Bogoliubov interferometer, Phys

    V. Khrapai, Quantum Hall Bogoliubov interferometer, Phys. Rev. B 107, L241401 (2023), arXiv:2210.05525

    2023 arXiv

  41. [46]

    J. J. Cuozzo and E. Rossi, SU(4) symmetry break- ing and induced superconductivity in graphene quan- tum Hall edges, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024518 (2024), arXiv:2306.12483

    2024 arXiv

  42. [47]

    Bondarev, G

    A. Bondarev, G. Zhang, and H. U. Baranger, Transpar- ent graphene-superconductor interfaces: Quantum Hall and zero field regimes, Phys. Rev. B 111, 235444 (2025), arXiv:2502.13307

    2025 arXiv

  43. [48]

    Y. Tang, C. Knapp, and J. Alicea, Vortex-enabled An- dreev processes in quantum Hall–superconductor hy- brids, Phys. Rev. B 106, 245411 (2022)

    2022

  44. [49]

    Manesco, I

    A. Manesco, I. M. Fl´ or, C.-X. Liu, and A. Akhmerov, Mechanisms of Andreev reflection in quantum Hall graphene, SciPost Phys. Core 5, 045 (2022), arXiv:2103.06722

    2022 arXiv

  45. [50]

    V. D. Kurilovich, Z. M. Raines, and L. I. Glazman, Dis- order in Andreev reflection of a quantum Hall edge, Nat. Comm. 14, 2237 (2023), arXiv:2201.00273

    2023 arXiv

  46. [51]

    Schiller, B

    N. Schiller, B. A. Katzir, A. Stern, E. Berg, N. H. Lindner, and Y. Oreg, Superconductivity and fermionic dissipation in quantum Hall edges, Phys. Rev. B 107, L161105 (2023), arXiv:2202.10475

    2023 arXiv

  47. [52]

    Y. Hu, J. Wang, and B. Lian, Resistance distribution of decoherent quantum Hall-superconductor edges (2024), arXiv:2405.17550 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [53]

    Titov and C

    M. Titov and C. W. J. Beenakker, Josephson effect in ballistic graphene, Phys. Rev. B 74, 041401(R) (2006)

    2006

  49. [55]

    J. A. M. van Ostaay, A. R. Akhmerov, C. W. J. Beenakker, and M. Wimmer, Dirac boundary condition at the reconstructed zigzag edge of graphene, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195434 (2011)

    2011

  50. [56]

    transparent

    For a precise evaluation of the transparency here (in con- trast to our loose use of the term “transparent”), con- sider the honeycomb-to-square-lattice interface in the ab- sence of both superconductivity and a magnetic field. We find the transmission per mode from the graphe...

  51. [57]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Tran- sition from metallic to tunneling regimes in supercon- ducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im- balance, and supercurrent conversion, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  52. [58]

    Y. M. Blanter and I. Martin, Transport through normal- metal–graphene contacts, Phys. Rev. B 76, 155433 (2007)

    2007

  53. [59]

    Takagaki, Quantum magnetotransport oscillations in graphene nanoribbons coupled to superconductors, J

    Y. Takagaki, Quantum magnetotransport oscillations in graphene nanoribbons coupled to superconductors, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. 33, 255301 (2021)

    2021

  54. [60]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: A software package for quantum transport, New J. Phys. 16, 063065 (2014)

    2014

  55. [61]

    The width of the superconductor is, respectively, 150 a and 400a for our dense and sparse stitching results

    The width of the zigzag graphene nanoribbon is 300√ 3 a. The width of the superconductor is, respectively, 150 a and 400a for our dense and sparse stitching results

  56. [62]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for results for the superconductor lattice not used in the main text—dense or sparse stitching as ap- propriate. The energy spectrum of QH states, scatter- ing states, and Andreev conversion probability, Phe, are...

  57. [63]

    Brey and H

    L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Edge states and the quantized Hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 73, 195408 (2006)

    2006

  58. [64]

    Delplace and G

    P. Delplace and G. Montambaux, WKB analysis of edge states in graphene in a strong magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 82, 205412 (2010)

    2010

  59. [65]

    Romanovsky, C

    I. Romanovsky, C. Yannouleas, and U. Landman, Unique nature of the lowest Landau level in finite graphene sam- ples with zigzag edges: Dirac electrons with mixed bulk- edge character, Phys. Rev. B 83, 045421 (2011)

    2011

  60. [66]

    5 form a graphene nanoribbon

    The left and right sides of the parallelogram in Fig. 5 form a graphene nanoribbon. For opposite sides of a zigzag nanoribbon, the terminal sites are on opposite sublattices and so the LLL edge states are in opposite valleys

  61. [67]

    The electron (hole) component is in the upper (lower) panel

    At each lattice site i, we plot a disk with area propor- tional to |ψβ i |2 (β = e, h); the disk is green for sublattice A sites and blue for B. The electron (hole) component is in the upper (lower) panel. The intensity scale is chosen such that (for our standard parameters) t...

  62. [68]

    In contrast, only the K-valley interface mode appears in Fig

    At full coupling, tN S/t = 1, nearly perfect Andreev con- version occurs, which implies that only the interface mode in the K ′ valley is involved for the reverse par- allelogram. In contrast, only the K-valley interface mode appears in Fig. 6

  63. [69]

    For the smallest µgr, wider systems needed to be used

  64. [70]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Quantum transport in semicon- ductor-superconductor microjunctions, Phys. Rev. B 46, 12841 (1992)

    1992

  65. [71]

    12 and S4, one must start with the highest transparency interface involving no in- tervalley scattering as the reference point

    To compare chiral Andreev conversion and conventional Andreev reflection as in Figs. 12 and S4, one must start with the highest transparency interface involving no in- tervalley scattering as the reference point. Simply setting tN S/t = 1 does not necessarily achieve an ideall...

  66. [72]

    More Andreev conversion at lower graphene filling [mono- tonic decrease of Phe(µgr)] can be understood through the spectrum of the QH edge and interface modes. In

  67. [73]

    Small tN Sconverts this to an anti-crossing, and then largertN S causes full hybridization and the valley-degenerate spec- trum (see Figs

    we pointed out that e-h hybridization is connected to a crossing in the BdG spectrum of QH edge states at E = µgr (terminated-lattice, no superconductivity). Small tN Sconverts this to an anti-crossing, and then largertN S causes full hybridization and the valley-degenerate sp...

  68. [74]

    J. Wurm, M. Wimmer, I. Adagideli, K. Richter, and H. U. Baranger, Interfaces within graphene nanoribbons, New J. Phys. 11, 095022 (2009), arXiv:0906.4351

    2009 arXiv

  69. [75]

    C. O. Girit, J. C. Meyer, R. Erni, M. D. Rossell, C. Kisielowski, L. Yang, C.-H. Park, M. F. Crommie, M. L. Cohen, S. G. Louie, and A. Zettl, Graphene at the edge: Stability and dynamics, Science 323, 1705 (2009)

    2009

  70. [76]

    Tkachov and M

    G. Tkachov and M. Hentschel, Diffusion on edges of in- sulating graphene with intravalley and intervalley scat- tering, Phys. Rev. B 86, 205414 (2012)

    2012

  71. [78]

    minimal boundary

    Compared to the zigzag case, the unit cell for the edge at angle θ is larger (possibly much larger) and the Brillouin zone is correspondingly smaller, with the graphene con- duction band folded back into the reduced zone causing multiple bands. The demonstration in Ref. [54] h...

  72. [80]

    At the junction of a QH edge state with the hybrid mode along the interface, it is likely that evanescent states will be needed in order to success- fully match the states

    Here we specify more precisely what we mean by a smooth or rounded corner. At the junction of a QH edge state with the hybrid mode along the interface, it is likely that evanescent states will be needed in order to success- fully match the states. Suppose the least evanescent ...

  73. [81]

    Such intervalley scattering away from the interface with the supercon- ductor does not affect the Andreev conversion

    There may, of course, be intervalley scattering at some point along the smooth corner—for instance, if an in- terval of armchair edge is encountered. Such intervalley scattering away from the interface with the supercon- ductor does not affect the Andreev conversion. Rather it...

  74. [82]

    M. Jo, P. Brasseur, A. Assouline, G. Fleury, H.-S. Sim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, W. Dumnernpanich, P. Roche, D. Glattli, N. Kumada, F. Parmentier, and P. Roulleau, Quantum Hall Valley Splitters and a Tun- able Mach-Zehnder Interferometer in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 14...

    2021

  75. [83]

    A. R. Akhmerov, J. H. Bardarson, A. Rycerz, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Theory of the valley-valve effect in graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. B 77, 205416 (2008)

    2008

  76. [84]

    Rainis, F

    D. Rainis, F. Taddei, F. Dolcini, M. Polini, and R. Fazio, Andreev reflection in graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. B 79, 115131 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    Trifunovic and P

    L. Trifunovic and P. W. Brouwer, Valley isospin of in- terface states in a graphene pn-junction in the quantum Hall regime, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205431 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Rossi and C

    E. Rossi and C. Triola, Van der Waals heterostructures with spin-orbit coupling, Annalen Phys. 532, 1900344 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis, 2D transition metal dichalcogenides, Nat. Rev. Mat. 2, 1 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, and M. S. Strano, Electronics and optoelectronics of two- dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides, Nat. Nano. 7, 699 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Quantum Hall Andreev conversion in graphene nanos- tructures

    A. Bondarev, W. H. Klein, and H. U. Baranger, Data for “Quantum Hall Andreev conversion in graphene nanos- tructures” (2025), DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15750108. 1 Supplemental Material for “Quantum Hall Andreev Conversion in Graphene Nanostructures” Alexey Bondarev, William H. Klein...

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    Com- pare to dense-stitching results in Fig

    At partial coupling, intervalley-scattering occurs at some corners, leading to rapid oscillations in the trapezoid. Com- pare to dense-stitching results in Fig. 2. (Parameters other- wise standard, see Sec. II C.) mode along the interface; indeed, beating between the two modes...

  83. [91]

    The colors label graphene chemical po- tentials that uniformly sample 5–86% of the LLL

    for comparison. The colors label graphene chemical po- tentials that uniformly sample 5–86% of the LLL. The zero field results are computed in a two-terminal nanoribbon geom- etry and averaged over several lengths of the interface. Com- pare to sparse-stitched results in Fig. 12

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.