Search for: All records

We report evidence for superconductivity with onset temperatures up to 11 K in thin films of the infinite-layer nickelate parent compound ${\mathrm{NdNiO}}_2$. A combination of oxide molecular beam epitaxy and atomic hydrogen reduction yields samples with high crystallinity and low residual resistivities, a substantial fraction of which exhibit superconducting transitions. We survey a large series of samples with a variety of techniques, including electrical transport, scanning transmission electron microscopy, x-ray absorption spectroscopy, and resonant inelastic x-ray scattering, to investigate the possible origins of superconductivity. We propose that superconductivity could be intrinsic to the undoped infinite-layer nickelates but suppressed by disorder due to a possibly sign-changing order parameter, a finding which would necessitate a reconsideration of the nickelate phase diagram. Another possible hypothesis is that the parent materials can be hole doped from randomly dispersed apical oxygen atoms, which would suggest an alternative pathway for achieving superconductivity. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

Abstract Bin and bulk schemes are the two primary methods to parameterize cloud microphysical processes. This study attempts to reveal how their structural differences (size‐resolved vs. moment‐resolved) manifest in terms of cloud and precipitation properties. We use a bulk scheme, the Arbitrary Moment Predictor (AMP), which uses process parameterizations identical to those in a bin scheme but predicts only moments of the size distribution like a bulk scheme. As such, differences between simulations using AMP's bin scheme and simulations using AMP itself must come from their structural differences. In one‐dimensional kinematic simulations, the overall difference between AMP (bulk) and bin schemes is found to be small. Full‐microphysics AMP and bin simulations have similar mean liquid water path (mean percent difference <4%), but AMP simulates significantly lower mean precipitation rate (−35%) than the bin scheme due to slower precipitation onset. Individual processes are also tested. Condensation is represented almost perfectly with AMP, and only small AMP‐bin differences emerge due to nucleation, evaporation, and sedimentation. Collision‐coalescence is the single biggest reason for AMP‐bin divergence. Closer inspection shows that this divergence is primarily a result of autoconversion and not of accretion. In full microphysics simulations, lowering the diameter threshold separating cloud and rain category in AMP fromtoreduces the largest AMP‐bin difference to ∼10%, making the effect of structural differences between AMP (and perhaps triple‐moment bulk schemes generally) and bin even smaller than the parameterization differences between the two bin schemes.