Oct 2026· Nature Communications· 1 citation· 27 references
High-pressure geophysics and materials
Abstract
In our paper 1 , we studied the magnetic response of H 3 S and LaH 10 superconductors to an applied magnetic field using Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetometry. Prof. Hirsch, in his Matters Arising entitled “On the Author Correction to “Magnetic field screening in hydride superconductors” Nat Commun 15, 8144 (2024)” and in the Comment 2 , questioned the averaging procedure applied to the magnetization data and raised broader doubts about the superconducting nature of high- T c hydrides. We accept that the original publication did not sufficiently describe the data processing steps, specifically the smoothing, averaging, and filtering procedures applied to the measured magnetic moment M(H appl ,T) datasets used to determine the penetration field H p . Due to the SQUID magnetometer’s dual current source configuration, magnetization measurements on our micrometer-scale samples exhibit an increased noise level above approximately 30 mT. To extract values of H p from these high-noise datasets, we applied standard mathematical smoothing/filtering techniques. In addition, here we describe an alternative method to determine H p without any data processing, based on a methodology commonly used for extracting critical currents in superconductors 3 from V(I) datasets. This approach was recently shown to be effective for DC magnetization data 4 . The H p values of the present analysis are consistent with those published in our original work 1 . We emphasize that the Comment 2 concerns the secondary matter of estimating Ginzburg-Landau parameter, not the fundamental evidence for superconductivity in hydride superconductors. Our full raw magnetization datasets – featuring both virgin and hysteretic M(H appl ,T) curves – clearly show characteristic superconducting behavior below T c , and the absence of hysteresis above it. These datasets are openly accessible via the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/7wqxb/ ), allowing independent evaluation of our analysis.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...
Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 302 citations· ⚡60
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.