https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13934-3
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics
A stress test of global PDF fits: closure testing the MSHT PDFs and a first direct comparison to the neural net approach
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, WC1E 6BT, London, UK
2
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, 22607, Hamburg, Germany
Received:
12
August
2024
Accepted:
15
February
2025
Published online:
18
March
2025
We present a 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. To achieve this, we present a fit to the NNPDF4.0 data and theory inputs, but with the MSHT fixed parameterisation. We find that this gives a moderately, but noticeably, better fit quality than the central NNPDF4.0 fits, both with perturbative and fitted charm, 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 
tolerance is applied, but to be significantly smaller if a tolerance typical of the MSHT20 fit is applied. This points to an inherent inconsistency between these approaches. We discuss the need for an enlarged tolerance criterion in global PDF fits in detail, and demonstrate the impact of data/theory inconsistencies in the closure test setting; namely, these do not lead to any increase in the PDF uncertainty. We also investigate the impact of restricting the PDF parameterisation to have fewer free parameters than the default MSHT20 case, and find this can be significant at the level of both closure tests and the full fit.
© The Author(s) 2025
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3.
