Reply to "Threefold error in the reported zero-field cooled magnetic moment of single crystal La₂SmNi₂O₇ (arXiv: 2602.23240)"
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.