Source capture
Authors Feiyu Li, Zhenfang Xing, Di Peng, Jie Dou, Ning Guo, Liang Ma, Yulin Zhang, Lingzhen Wang, Jun Luo, Jie Yang, Jian Zhang, Tieyan Chang, Yu-Sheng Chen, Weizhao Cai, Jinguang Cheng, Yuzhu Wang, Yuxin Liu, Tao Luo, Naohisa Hirao, Takahiro Matsuoka, Hirokazu Kadobayashi, Zhidan Zeng, Qiang Zheng, Rui Zhou, Qiaoshi Zeng, Xutang Tao, Junjie Zhang
arXiv / Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23842
PDF https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.23842
Relevance score 4.473
Primary category cond-mat.supr-con
Published 2026-03-02
Research paradigm Theoretical
Sample form Single Crystal

Summary

In response to the critique by Korolev and Talantsev regarding the calculation of the superconducting phase fraction in the Nature paper by Li et al., the authors provide a point-by-point rebuttal: first, experimental confirmation shows that the weak upturn at low temperatures originates from the background, and no paramagnetic Meissner effect is observed, validating the use of field-cooled data for calculating the superconducting phase fraction; second, the demagnetization effect must be based on the actual variation of measured magnetic moment with the superconducting phase fraction f, whereas Korolev et al. erroneously treated the demagnetizing field as a constant, causing their formula to underestimate f by approximately two-thirds (by a factor close to 1/3), which explains why their calculated result is only about one-third of the reported value (approximately 62.1%); finally, multiple characterizations of the sample (energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, nuclear quadrupole resonance, scanning transmission electron microscopy, etc.) confirm it to be a homogeneous, high-quality bulk single crystal without multiple discrete superconducting regions. Therefore, the method for calculating the superconducting phase fraction in Li et al.'s Nature paper has not been invalidated by Korolev et al.'s analysis.

Materials

Methods

Keywords

Highlights

  • Provides a detailed derivation of the correct formula for superconducting volume fraction in the presence of demagnetization.
  • Shows that the critique's calculation contains a fundamental error by assuming a linear relationship between measured moment and f.

Conclusions

  • The paramagnetic Meissner effect is absent in the data; FC data can be used for volume fraction.
  • The correct self-consistent relation between measured and intrinsic susceptibility yields f ≈ 62.1%, not 22.8%.
  • Korolev and Talantsev's calculation underestimates f by a factor of (1-Nχmeas)/(1-N), which is about 1/3.
  • The sample is a homogeneous single crystal, so the existence of multiple discrete superconducting regions is highly unlikely.

Main claims

  • The weak upturn in low-temperature tail originates from background, not paramagnetic Meissner effect, so field-cooled data are valid for phase fraction calculations.
    • Evidence: full_text response to point (1) confirms background origin,abstract states paramagnetic Meissner effect is absent
  • Demagnetization effect must be calculated self-consistently as a function of f; treating demagnetization field as constant underestimates f by a factor ≈1/3.
    • Evidence: full_text detailed derivation showing factor (1-Nχmeas)(1-N) ≈ 1/3,abstract and summary_en explain the flaw in Korolev and Talantsev's method
  • The sample is a homogeneous high-quality bulk single crystal, not composed of multiple discrete superconducting regions.
    • Evidence: full_text lists EDX, XRD, NQR, STEM characterizations,abstract states various techniques confirm homogeneity

Workflow

Not available in this batch.