Closure Testing the MSHT PDFs and a First Direct Comparison to the Neural Net Approach

We present a brief overview of the first global closure test of the fixed parameterisation (MSHT) approach to PDF fitting. We find that the default MSHT20 parameterisation can reproduce the features of the input set in such a closure test to well within the textbook uncertainties. This provides strong evidence that parameterisation inflexibility in the MSHT20 fit is not a significant issue in the data region. We also present the first completely like--for--like comparison between two global PDF fits, namely MSHT and NNPDF, where the only difference is guaranteed to be due to the fitting methodology. We find that this gives a moderately, but noticeably, better fit quality than the central NNPDF4.0 fits and that this difference persists at the level of the PDFs and benchmark cross sections. The NNPDF4.0 uncertainties are found to be broadly in line with the MSHT results if a textbook $T^2=1$ tolerance is applied, but to be significantly smaller if a tolerance typical of the MSHT20 fit is applied.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2024-12-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.22323/1.469.0049
Primary Topic
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Closure Testing the MSHT PDFs and a First Direct Comparison to the Neural Net Approach

Tom Cridge, Lucian A. Harland-Lang, Robert Samuel Thorne
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
article

Closure Testing the MSHT PDFs and a First Direct Comparison to the Neural Net Approach

Tom Cridge, Lucian A. Harland-Lang, Robert Samuel Thorne
article en

Abstract

We present a brief overview of the first global closure test of the fixed parameterisation (MSHT) approach to PDF fitting. We find that the default MSHT20 parameterisation can reproduce the features of the input set in such a closure test to well within the textbook uncertainties. This provides strong evidence that parameterisation inflexibility in the MSHT20 fit is not a significant issue in the data region. We also present the first completely like--for--like comparison between two global PDF fits, namely MSHT and NNPDF, where the only difference is guaranteed to be due to the fitting methodology. We find that this gives a moderately, but noticeably, better fit quality than the central NNPDF4.0 fits and that this difference persists at the level of the PDFs and benchmark cross sections. The NNPDF4.0 uncertainties are found to be broadly in line with the MSHT results if a textbook $T^2=1$ tolerance is applied, but to be significantly smaller if a tolerance typical of the MSHT20 fit is applied.

Science and Technology Facilities Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.