neutrino physics in the past two decades has seen an astounding transformation from a collection of anomalies to precision science , which most recently resulted in the measurement of @xmath1 at accelerator  @xcite and reactor  @xcite experiments .
the next goals in neutrino oscillation physics are the determination of the mass hierarchy ( _ i.e. _ , the ordering of the neutrino mass eigenstates ) and of the leptonic cp phase , which will require control of systematic errors at an unprecedented level of accuracy in neutrino physics .
in particular the measurement of the cp phase will put very stringent demands on the determination of neutrino versus antineutrino interactions in the gev region , see _
e.g. _ refs .
it is widely recognized that our current understanding of nuclear effects in neutrino - nucleus interactions is insufficient to guarantee the required control of systematical errors .
a number of studies have been performed focusing on nuclear effects in this context , see for instance refs .
given the complexity of the full problem with respect to neutrino and antineutrino cross - sections , we investigate here the simpler case of @xmath0 disappearance .
in particular , we would like to extend the results of ref .
@xcite and perform a comparison of _ different _ nuclear models and their impact on oscillation parameters .
it is a common approach to estimate errors arising from theories using several available theoretical calculations and take the spread in their results as a measure of the associated uncertainty ; we follow the same logic and specifically , will compare the results obtained using genie  @xcite and gibuu  @xcite .
clearly , this type of inter - comparison can be extended to a larger number of event generators as well .
our choice is largely guided by the fact that genie is widely used , and gibuu represents an unique and complementary theoretical approach based on transport theory .
moreover , both codes are open sources which seem a necessary condition for meaningful comparisons .
we evaluate the impact of several aspects of nuclear models and their differing implementation with respect to the ability to measure the so - called atmospheric parameters , @xmath2 and @xmath3 in an experimental setup which is similar to t2k .
our main result is that effects from changing the target nucleus from carbon to oxygen induces a bias in @xmath2 of about 1@xmath4 .
fitting data obtained with one generator and the other results in dramatic shifts due to different modeling and implementation of final state interactions and nuclear models .
also , the absence of multi - nucleon correlations in the fit can induce a bias between 1@xmath4 and 3@xmath4 on the results for both of the oscillation parameters . as previously found in ref .
@xcite , a near detector does not resolve these issues .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ sec : events ] , we outline the principle of energy reconstruction for charged - current quasi - elastic - like events , and in sec .  [
sec : gen ] we perform a detailed comparison of the various physics models implemented in both generators for a number of relevant interaction models .
this is followed by a detailed description of the simulations in sec .
[ sec : sim ] which leads to our results in sec .
[ sec : results ] . finally , in sec .
[ sec : concl ] we present our conclusions .
in a water erenkov detector , the event sample is restricted to charged - current ( cc ) `` quasi - elastic - like '' ( qe - like ) events , a definition which was first introduced in refs .
these are selected by requiring that there be only one charged particle above erenkov threshold in the final state , the so - called `` single ring '' events . for a qe event considering the neutron at rest ,
the neutrino energy can be reconstructed from the kinematic variables of the charged lepton @xmath5 in the final state as : @xmath6 where @xmath7 is the free neutron rest - mass , @xmath8 , and @xmath9 is the binding energy .
both genie and gibuu use @xmath9=30  mev , a value which is obtained from electron scattering data  @xcite .
[ eq : recengwoproton ] is exact only for the qe interaction with a neutron at rest .
however , for any neutrino experiment observing qe - like events , the final sample will also contain events that are not qe . for example , in a single pion neutrino interaction , _
i.e. _ , an event with a charged lepton and a pion in the final state , the pion can be absorbed by the nucleus during final state interactions ( fsi ) .
such event will therefore be classified as qe - like . in this case , if eq .
[ eq : recengwoproton ] is used to reconstruct the neutrino energy , it will unavoidably lead to a value of the reconstructed neutrino energy _
lower _ than the true incident value for the reason that part of the neutrino energy is carried away by the pion and eventually absorbed by the nucleus .
the actual value of the reconstructed neutrino energy will depend on the energy of unobserved particles in the final state  @xcite .
therefore , while the reconstructed energy will mostly coincide with the true energy of the incident neutrino for a true qe event , there exists a certain probability to have a non - qe event end up being reconstructed with a significantly different neutrino energy .
this defines a migration matrix between true and reconstructed neutrino energies , @xmath10,@xmath11 , where each element represents the probability that an event for each given true neutrino energy @xmath12 ends up being reconstructed with a different energy @xmath13 .
the final qe - like event sample will comprise qe as well as non - qe events , where pions are not present in the final state :    @xmath14    where @xmath15 is the true neutrino energy , @xmath16 stands for the oscillation probability of @xmath17 , @xmath18 is the initial flavor neutrino flux , the matrices @xmath19 account for the probability that an event with a true neutrino energy in the bin @xmath20 ends up being reconstructed in the energy bin @xmath21 .
@xmath22 stands for the cross - section for a given non - qe process in which there are no pions in the final state . in this work , we will study a muon neutrino disappearance experiment , so @xmath23 .
finally , it should be kept in mind the classification of event types in neutrino experiments is not well - defined , since the incident neutrino energy is not known . in this work ,
we focus on the migration of non - qe events into the qe - like sample .
however , it should be kept in mind that there is a second source of mis - identifying events which takes place in the opposite direction .
for instance , an initially purely qe interaction , where the outgoing proton re - interacts inside the nucleus , producing a delta resonance ( @xmath24 ) .
the @xmath24 will then decay and produce a pion in the final state . as a result
, this event will be classified as non - qe due to the resonance production . in summary , both the qe and resonance interactions are entangled , and sometimes it is hard to distinguish one from the other .
neutrino oscillation experiments rely on different event generators to help them estimate the portion of mis - identified qe and resonance production events . however , there are considerable theoretical uncertainties in predicting both event classes .
this results in different event generators having different theoretical implementations of the same event types .
this is a major source of systematic uncertainty which , like all theory - related errors , is difficult to quantify .
in this work , both migration matrices and cross - sections in eq .  [
eq : events - qelike ] are computed by the event generator .
we have considered two different event generators in this work : genie ( generates events for neutrino interaction experiments ) 2.8.0  @xcite and gibuu ( giessen boltzmann - uehling - uhlenbeck ) 2.6  @xcite .
genie is used by the major neutrino accelerator experiments in the us , such as miner@xmath25a  @xcite , minos  @xcite , microboone  @xcite , no@xmath25a@xcite and lbne  @xcite , and is also used by the t2k  @xcite experiment  .
gibuu , on the other hand , is based on a semiclassical transport model  @xcite , and therefore constitutes a complimentary and independent theoretical approach .
figure  [ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] shows the total cross - sections per neutron on @xmath26o with no pions in the final state for all qe - like interactions using genie and gibuu . in this work , we consider charged - current quasi - elastic ( qe ) , charged - current single pion production ( res ) from @xmath24 resonant decay , charged - current non - resonant pion production ( non - res ) , and neutrino interactions involving the two - nucleon currents arising from meson exchange processes and nucleon - nucleon correlations ( mec/2p2h ) .
we analyze simulated events with the additional requirement of no pion in the final - state .
it should be noted that we do not consider the contributions of deep inelastic scattering ( dis ) and the production of higher resonances , even though they were included in the analysis performed in ref .
the reason for this is the following .
the cross - section for the production of higher resonances with no pion in the final state is found to be very small , see fig .  1 in ref
.  @xcite , and so is its contribution to the total number of events .
in addition , for the particular setup in this simulation work , the neutrino flux decreases very rapidly above 1 - 1.5  gev , where the dis cross - section is still negligible .
therefore , since there is no sizable contribution from dis events either , they have been removed from our simulations .
it should be kept in mind , though , that the removal of events coming from the higher resonances and dis may not be the case for neutrino experiments in which the flux peaks at higher energies , such as lbne  @xcite .
the migration matrices are computed as follows .
each neutrino interaction sample consists of 50,000 events , generated in bins of true neutrino energy from 0.2  gev to 4.8  gev , for a total of 46 bins .
each matrix is built by counting the number of entries in each bin of the reconstruction energy as defined in eq .
[ eq : recengwoproton ] and then dividing it by the total amount of entries .
this is done separately for each type of interaction as defined in fig .
[ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] . for
each given value of the initial true energy , a probability distribution in reconstructed energies @xmath27 can be computed .
in fact , @xmath10,@xmath28 can be regarded as filling one two - dimensional probability density plane where the y - axis indicates the density in reconstructed energies , @xmath27 , and the x - axis represents the true energy value .
this effectively implements an energy smearing due to nuclear effects .
we require the sum of densities for a given true energy to be normalized to the unity , so that the number of events before and after migration remains the same .
both genie and gibuu event generators differ on the nuclear models used as well as on how the different types of interactions are computed . in the rest of this section
, we list some of the main differences between them .      when generating neutrino - nucleus qe interactions , both genie and gibuu use variants of the relativistic fermi gas model ( rfg )  @xcite to describe the nuclear structure and the dynamics of neutrino - nucleus interactions under the hypothesis of plane wave impulse approximation ( pwia ) , see for instance ref .
@xcite for a review . in the pwia ,
the struck nucleon in every single neutrino - nucleus interaction is treated as a quasi - free particle due to the high momentum transfer q@xmath29 , while the rest of the nucleus , the so - called spectator system , is left unperturbed . in the rfg
, the double differential cross - section can be written down as a function of scattering angle and outgoing lepton s total energy , that is approximated as the lepton s kinematic energy  @xcite : @xmath30 with @xmath31 where @xmath32 is a normalization factor , and @xmath33 is the fermi momentum ( @xmath34 , or @xmath35 ) , which is the same for all nuclear targets in genie and gibuu .
@xmath36 , where @xmath9 is the average binding energies ( _ i.e. _ , the binding energy of the nucleon ) .
@xmath37 is the elementary cross - section used to describe the probability of interactions between the incident neutrino and the nucleon .
the integration limits in eq .
[ eq : tot_xsec_formula ] are determined by the boundaries of the kinematically allowed region  @xcite .
the nuclear model used in genie to simulate qe interactions is a modified rfg that includes short - range nucleon - nucleon correlations according to the model developed by a. bodek and j. l. ritchie  @xcite .
gibuu also uses the rfg , but in this case , the rfg is modified by adding corrections from the nucleon s momentum and density dependent mean - field potential , where all nucleons are considered to be bound .
the phase - space density function in gibuu also includes the real part of the self - energy for the knock - out nucleon  @xcite .
both generators use the same value for the axial mass , @xmath381  gev / c@xmath39 .
the vector form factor in genie is bbba05  @xcite , while in gibuu it is bbba07  @xcite .
the qe cross - sections for the two generators are practically the same but with small discrepancies which result from different electromagnetic form factor shapes and separate corrections added to the rfg . the qe event distribution for genie and gibuu on @xmath26o is shown in fig .
[ fig : events_qe ] .
we have noted some differences in the event distribution as function of reconstructed neutrino energy between genie and gibuu as shown in fig .
[ fig : events_qe ] .
the nuclear model used to describe the qe neutrino interactions is essentially the same between genie and gibuu .
for example , we find no differences in the qe cross - section as shown in fig .
[ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] between genie and gibuu .
we do not find any shift between the event distributions as function of reconstructed neutrino energy if we repeat the same simulation but removing fsi effects for both genie and gibuu .
nevertheless , we find a shift of 10% between the event distribution as a function of reconstructed neutrino energy ( defined as in eq .
[ eq : recengwoproton ] ) between genie and gibuu , as it is shown in fig .
[ fig : events_qe ] .
this is not surprising due to the fact that genie and gibuu follow a completely different approach to describe fsi .
for example gibuu , the fsi is modeled by solving the semi - classical boltzmann - uehling - uhlenbeck equation . for more details on genie and gibuu , see for instance refs .
@xcite .
the migration matrices for qe events are shown in fig .
[ fig : genie_matrix_qe ] and fig .
[ fig : gibuu_matrix_qe ] in app .
[ app : matrices ] for genie and gibuu , respectively .
these matrices include fsi effects .          at the neutrino energies relevant for this work ( @xmath401  gev ) , the second dominant neutrino interaction is the single pion production via @xmath24 resonances ( res ) .
the res includes : ( 1 ) the baryon resonance decay ; ( 2 ) the charge - exchange of a neutral pion inside the nucleus ; ( 3 ) the absorption of multiple pions .
gibuu contains 13 kinds of resonance modes .
the vector form factors for each resonance mode are obtained from the maid  @xcite analysis of the electron scattering data .
the axial form factors for gibbu are derived from a fit to the data as described in ref .
@xcite . in the case of gibuu ,
nuclear effects include collisions within nucleons and the nucleon s momentum and density dependent mean - field potential .
the fsi is determined by modeling a coupled - channel transport method .
this model is tested against electron- , photon- , pion- and proton - scattering data .
genie , instead , applies the rein - sehgal  @xcite model with 16 resonance models in the region of transferred energy @xmath41 .
fermi motion and pauli blocking are the only nuclear effects included in this case .
the fsi is modeled using an intra - nuclear model as described in detail in ref .
genie res is validated with electron scattering data from @xmath42fe and @xmath43c targets .
the res event distributions for genie and gibuu using @xmath26o are shown in fig .
[ fig : events_res ] in app .
[ app : matrices ] .
the corresponding migration matrices are shown in figs .
[ fig : genie_matrix_res ] and  [ fig : gibuu_matrix_res ] for genie and gibuu , respectively . in fig .
[ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] , we only show the contribution of @xmath24-resonant production to the cross - section without regarding the heavier resonance modes .
as already explained at the beginning of this section , the higher resonance effects become more significant and dominant at higher neutrino beam energies and would therefore have little impact on our results .
aside from qe and res , at neutrino energies below 1  gev an additional contribution to the total neutrino cross - section comes from processes involving two particle - two hole ( mec/2p2h ) excitations , as shown in fig .
[ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] .
several models have been proposed to compute these contributions in neutrino experiments , and the field has been object of a very intense research in the past few years . for an incomplete list of references on this topic , see  @xcite .
sources of mec/2p2h excitation include : ( 1 ) nucleon - nucleon correlations in the initial state , ( 2 ) neutrino coupling to 2p2h and ( 3 ) fsi . in processes
in which two - nucleons are knocked out from the target nucleus , the nucleon s momentum distribution in the spectator system is influenced .
therefore , an excess of qe - inclusive events is produced .
furthermore , it is obvious that if eq .
[ eq : recengwoproton ] is applied to obtain the reconstructed neutrino energy , this will most likely differ from the true incident neutrino energy , due to the non - qe nature of the interaction . the effect of 2p-2h has been recently revealed by the theoretical interpretation  @xcite of the results obtained in the miniboone experiment  @xcite .
a detailed description of the implementation of mec/2p2h in genie is available in ref .
@xcite , and for gibuu is available in ref .  @xcite .    the mec/2p2h event distribution for genie and gibuu on @xmath26o is shown in fig .
[ fig : events_2p2h ] of app .
[ app : matrices ] .
the associated migration matrices are shown in figs .
[ fig : genie_matrix_2p2h ] and  [ fig : gibuu_matrix_2p2h ] for genie and gibuu , respectively .
these matrices seem to be rather different . to simulate this particular interaction , both gibuu and genie
have been tuned based on the measurements on @xmath43c done by the miniboone experiment and they do not yet include full theoretical model implementations like the ones presented in refs .  @xcite . in addition , it should be noted that the miniboone experiment measures the sum of the qe and mec/2p2h contributions , but the experiment is not capable of discriminating between them . in other words ,
the tuning of the neutrino interaction generators is performed in such a way that the sum of the qe and the mec/2p2h contributions to the double differential cross section agrees with the data .
therefore , if a difference exists between genie and gibuu in the qe interactions , then the mec/2p2h by construction will be different as well .
finally , it is worth mentioning that no difference in the total cross - section between genie and gibuu is found for both @xmath43c and @xmath26o as a result of the heavy tuning of the model on miniboone @xmath43c results .
the non - resonant pion production ( non - res ) includes the contributions of coherent and non - coherent pion productions .
the coherent pion production results in one muon and one single pion in the final state , in which the pion is not produced by a @xmath24-resonance decay .
the residual nucleus system remains in its ground state in the coherent production while in the incoherent pion production this is not the case .
genie includes only the coherent ( exclusive ) pion production  @xcite , whereas gibuu considers only the incoherent pion production process .
a full theoretical calculation for this interaction mode can be found in ref .
@xcite .
genie uses pcac  @xcite with the rein - sehgal  @xcite model to simulate the single pion interaction with the nucleon inside the ground - state target nucleus .
the neutrino - nucleon cross - section is computed at the initial time ( t=0 ) with the elastic nuclear form factors and an absorption factor to simulate the fsi of the outgoing pion .
in contrast , gibuu takes into account only the incoherent part of the initial - state pion , and does not make any local approximation to the @xmath24 propagator in the medium  @xcite . the non - res event distribution for genie and gibuu on @xmath26o
is shown in fig .
[ fig : events_coh ] of app .
[ app : matrices ] .
the associated migration matrices are shown in figs .
[ fig : genie_matrix_coh ] and  [ fig : gibuu_matrix_coh ] for genie and gibuu , respectively .
in this work we consider a setup very similar to the t2k experiment , simulated following ref .
the main details of the setup are summarized in tab .
[ tab : setup ] .
we consider two detectors : a far detector , placed at 295  km from the source , with a fiducial mass of 22.5  kton ; and a near detector of 1  kton fiducial mass , placed at 1  km from the decay pipe . the size and location of the near detector
have been chosen so as to guarantee that it observes enough events to be able to constrain the systematic errors included in the analysis ( for details on the systematic errors and the @xmath44 implementation , see app .
[ app : chi2 ] ) . in this work
, we assume that the two detectors observe the same flux , and that they are identical in terms of their composition and detection properties .
it should be kept in mind , however , that these assumptions would most likely _ not _ be realized in an actual neutrino beam experiment .
this may lead to a _
larger _ impact of nuclear effects on the extraction of the oscillation parameters than what is found in this work .
l@c@c@c@c@c@ & baseline & fiducial mass & flux peak & beam power & running time + far & 295  km & 22.5  kt & & & near & 1.0  km & 1.0  kt & & & +    the only oscillation channel considered is @xmath45 disappearance . for this channel ,
the only relevant background would come from neutral current ( nc ) interactions .
we do include such a background in our analysis , which produces a total of @xmath46 events at the far detector .
nevertheless , since our aim is to explore the impact of nuclear effects on the cc signal , we keep the background event rates the same for all the configurations under consideration in this work , and no study is done on the variation of these rates with different nuclear models and/or energy reconstruction effects .
background rates are smeared using a gaussian with @xmath47  mev , following ref .
@xcite . for the signal , on the other hand ,
since the migration matrices due to nuclear effects already introduce a rather coarse energy smearing , we do not consider additional effects due to the finite resolution from the detector .
we believe the effect due to this will be certainly minor , considering the large smearing that we observe already for the qe event sample , see figs .  [
fig : genie_matrix_qe ] and  [ fig : gibuu_matrix_qe ] in app .
[ app : matrices ] .
finally , energy dependent detection efficiencies are implemented for the signal , following ref .
these are applied after the events are migrated to reconstructed neutrino energies .
the expected number of events at the far detector for the different contributions to the qe - like event sample are shown in tab .
[ tab : events ] .
these are computed using the cross - sections produced for the two event generators under consideration , using oxygen as the target nucleus .
[ fig : rates ] shows the expected event rates for the qe - like event sample , binned as a function of the neutrino energy .
results are shown for the near and far detectors in the right and left panel , respectively .
the gray shaded areas show the event rates for the events before migration to reconstructed energies , while the solid blue ( dashed red ) lines show the results after migration to reconstructed neutrino energies , when the matrices and cross - sections are computed using gibuu ( genie ) , as explained in sec .
[ sec : gen ] . in all cases ,
the oscillation parameters have been set to the values in eq .
[ eq : oscparams ] in app .
[ app : chi2 ] , and detector efficiencies are accounted for .
we find that the event distributions using the matrices generated with gibuu are in agreement with those shown in fig .
10 of ref .
similar results were also shown in fig .  3 of ref .
@xcite for a different nuclear model , the event distribution before migration has been smeared with a gaussian energy resolution function with a constant width , to account for the detectors finite energy resolution . as a result ,
the lowest two energy bins have slightly more events before migration than after migration .
we have checked that for a detector of perfect energy resolution this is not the case and therefore our results are in agreement with those in refs .
@xcite . ] .
[ cols="<,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     it is also worth mentioning the large contribution to the qe - like sample coming from mec/2p2h contributions . it has recently been argued  @xcite that this may be the source of the large discrepancy between the value of @xmath48 reported in ref .
@xcite and the world average value of @xmath49  gev , see for instance ref .  @xcite . as it can be seen from tab .
[ tab : events ] ( see also fig .  [
fig : events_2p2h ] in app .
[ app : matrices ] ) , the expected contribution to the qe - like sample from mec/2p2h interactions is rather large for the setup considered in this work as well .
table  [ tab : events ] shows that around a @xmath50 of the final qe - like sample in our simulated setup would come from mec/2p2h interactions .
it is also noticeable the difference between the number of events ( @xmath51 ) obtained when the cross - section is computed using gibuu or genie .
this difference is not coming from the size of the cross - section , since in both cases the mec/2p2h cross - section is tuned to the miniboone data and the size of the peak is roughly the same , see fig .
[ fig : tot_xsec_genie_gibuu ] .
the reason for the difference in the number of events is a shift in neutrino energy in the cross section obtained from the two generators when they are compared against each other : while the genie cross - section reaches its maximum at around 1  gev , the gibuu cross - section peaks at slightly higher energies , around 1.2  gev .
since the peak in the neutrino flux considered in this work lies below 1  gev or so , the number of events from mec/2p2h interactions when the genie cross - section is used will be larger .
finally , small differences can also be appreciated in the number of events coming from resonant and non - resonant pion production .
the first one comes from a different number of resonances included in the computation , see also sec .
[ subsec : gen - nonres ] . in the second case ,
a different result is obtained since gibuu computes incoherent pion production while genie computes only the coherent contribution to this process .
in this section , we explore the impact on the extraction of the oscillation parameters in three different scenarios :    a.   when the target nucleus is changed in the fit ; b.   when the nuclear model is changed in the fit ; c.   when multi - nucleon contributions ( mec/2p2h ) are completely removed from the fit .
it is common practice to `` tune '' event generators according to a given target nucleus in a certain experiment .
however , the event generator may be used later on for an oscillation experiment using a different target . in this section
we evaluate the effect on the oscillation analysis if an event generator is tuned according to data obtained for a certain target but the experiment is performed using a different target .
results are shown in fig .
[ fig : targets ] . in the left panel ,
the binned expected event rates are shown as a function of the reconstructed neutrino energy , when oxygen ( solid black lines ) and carbon ( dashed gray lines ) are used to compute the cross - sections and migration matrices in eq .
[ eq : events - qelike ] . in both cases ,
the genie event generator is used to compute the matrices for all contributions . as it can be seen from the figure
, there is a slight shift towards lower energies in the event rates for carbon with respect to those obtained for oxygen .
we have checked that this shift is already present for the true qe event sample , and that it remains if final state interactions are removed from the simulation .
this is automatically translated into a shift for the best fit value of the mass - squared splitting .
the effect is shown in the right panel , where the gray shaded areas show the results when the true and the fitted event rates are computed using the same set of migration matrices , while the solid lines show the results when a different target is used to compute the matrices used in the true and the fitted event rates . in our particular example , oxygen is used to generate the matrices and cross - sections used to compute the true rates , and these are then fitted using carbon migration matrices and cross - sections . as it can be seen from the figure , there is a shift in the best fit for the atmospheric mass splitting from @xmath52 to @xmath53 .
there is also a shift in the best fit for the mixing angle , although in this case the effect is minor .
the value of the @xmath44 found at the best fit is also shown , together with the number of degrees of freedom in the analysis , @xmath54 , where @xmath55 is the number of energy bins and @xmath56 is the number of parameters that are being determined from the fit .
finally , it is worth mentioning that we find the size of this effect to be practically negligible if the gibuu event generator is used to produce the migration matrices and cross sections instead of genie .
let us now address the impact of using a different nuclear model .
for this purpose , we take the event rates computed using migration matrices produced with one event generator and we try to fit them using the matrices obtained with a different generator . the difference in the event rates
when the matrices are computed with different generators is significant , as it can be seen from the comparison of the solid blue and dashed red lines in fig .
[ fig : rates ] .
in fact , we find that the main source of the discrepancy appears in the qe sample already , as discussed in sec .
[ sec : gen ] .
therefore , a large effect in the fit to the oscillation parameters should be expected in this case .
the results are shown in fig .
[ fig : generators ] . again in this case , the shaded regions show the confidence regions when the same set of matrices is used to compute the true and the fitted event rates . for the solid lines , on the other hand ,
we compute the true event rates using matrices produced with gibuu , and try to fit them with the event rates computed using the matrices from genie . in all cases , oxygen is chosen as the target nucleus .
we find that the difference between the two models is so large that the best fit for the atmospheric mass splitting takes place around @xmath57 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : gen1 ] .
such large value would be in strong tension with the presently allowed region at @xmath58 from global fits , see for instance ref .
the fit would disfavor the true input value for the mass splitting at much more than @xmath58 and for the atmospheric mixing angle at roughly @xmath59 .    in a real experiment , this would most likely be attributed to a systematic error that has not been correctly evaluated , or to a signal of new physics .
we focus on the first possibility here .
in particular , since we observe that the main difference in the event rates is that the events suffer an energy shift ( see fig .  [
fig : rates ] , or fig .
[ fig : events_qe ] ) , we introduce a calibration error as an additional nuisance parameter . in order to do so ,
the event rates are effectively recomputed as : @xmath60 \rightarrow n[(1+a)\,e ] , \nonumber\ ] ] where @xmath61 is the calibration error .
an additional pull term @xmath62 is added to the @xmath44 in eq .
[ eq : chi2 ] , where @xmath63 is the prior uncertainty for this parameter . after a calibration error of around a 5%
is added , the resulting best fit is in much better agreement with the true input value , as it can be seen from fig .
[ fig : gen2 ] . nevertheless , there is still a significant shift in the best fit ( black triangle ) with respect to the true value ( red dot ) , which brings it from @xmath64 to @xmath65 . the best fit for the mixing angle is also shifted a couple of degrees into the second octant .
the value of the @xmath44 at the minimum over the number of degrees of freedom is also computed , and found to be @xmath66 .
we find that the largest contribution to the minimum of the @xmath44 comes from the tension in the energy bins below @xmath67  gev between the two event distributions .
this can be understood from the comparison of the event histograms in fig .
[ fig : rates ] , where the differences between the solid and dashed lines are observed to be largest in this energy region . in order to accommodate the large differences in these bins ,
the associated nuisance parameters during the @xmath44 minimization tend to take large values . as a consequence , their respective pull - terms
will significantly contribute to the final @xmath44 .
details on the systematics implementation can be found in app .
a.      recently , a lot of attention has been drawn to the miniboone experiment and the extraction of the value of the axial mass from the qe data .
it seems that the @xmath68 disagreement between the value of the axial mass extracted from the results in ref .
@xcite and the one obtained from previous experiments may be explained ( at least partially ) if multi - nucleon contributions are included in the analysis , see for instance refs .
@xcite . in this section ,
we evaluate the impact that neglecting mec/2p2h contributions may have on the extraction of neutrino oscillation parameters .
the results are shown in fig .
[ fig : mec ] when the migration matrices are computed using gibuu ( left panel ) and genie ( right panel ) . in both cases
, oxygen is used as the target nucleus .
the shaded areas show the confidence regions at 1,2 and @xmath69 cl when all contributions to the qe - like event sample are considered as in eq .
[ eq : events - qelike ] , and the same set of migration matrices is used to compute the true and fitted event rates . for the solid lines ,
on the other hand , the fit is done when the mec/2p2h contribution is completely removed from the fitted event rates . as expected , the impact on the confidence regions is rather relevant , and induces large deviation for the best fit values of the oscillation parameters , between 1 and 3@xmath4 depending on the event generator that is used to produce the migration matrices .
a final comment is in order here . as it was shown previously in the literature
( see for instance refs .
@xcite ) and confirmed here , the energy dependence of the qe - like event sample is very different when mec/2p2h contributions are included .
we have shown in this section that the impact of multi - nucleon contributions on the extraction of oscillation parameters can be rather large in the disappearance channels .
similar effects are in principle expected in the appearance channels as well .
this could have a significant impact on the sensitivity to cp violation at future oscillation experiments ( as mentioned , for instance , in refs .
@xcite ) , since the sensitivity to cp violation in neutrino oscillations comes from the analysis of _ both _ the energy dependence of the signal _ and _ the comparison between neutrino and antineutrino rates . both genie and gibuu have tuned their mec/2p2h interactions to the miniboone data , and their results for mec/2p2h contributions with oxygen and carbon therefore give exactly the same results .
however , _ a priori _ there is no reason to think that these effects should be the same for different nuclei . as for antineutrinos , there are currently very few measurements available .
the miniboone collaboration has recently reported some measurements in the antineutrino channel , where again it seems that mec/2p2h may play a leading role  @xcite .
this result has also been confirmed by the minerva collaboration  @xcite .
nevertheless , we would like to stress out the fact that the current proposals for the next generation of neutrino experiments would use either water ( t2hk  @xcite or ess@xmath25sb  @xcite , for instance ) or liquid argon ( lbne  @xcite and lbno  @xcite ) detectors , for which there are practically no measurements available at the relevant neutrino energies . again in this case , theoretical calculations show that in principle one should not expect these effects to be similar for neutrinos and antineutrinos .
@xcite and may be even larger for the latter , see for instance refs .  @xcite .
nuclear effects in neutrino interactions will be one of the leading sources of systematical errors in future neutrino - beam oscillation experiments .
already in the current t2k appearance result they are among the largest contributors to the overall systematic error budget  @xcite . in this paper
we try to estimate the size of the systematic error associated with theoretical models of nuclear effects as embodied by event generators , specifically genie and gibuu .
apart from providing a quantitative estimate we also developed a methodological framework which lends itself to be extended to a larger class of event generators and in principle also to cp violation studies .
given that lbne has chosen argon as the detector material , one question is whether changing the nuclear target will have a profound impact on the ability to extract oscillation physics . to get a first glimpse of an answer we study the @xmath0 disappearance channel and determine the bias resulting from simulating data with oxygen as target and fitting those data with a carbon interaction model .
the results of this experiment are shown in fig .
[ fig : targets2 ] and the quantitative findings are summarized in tab .
[ tab : summary ] , which correspond to a 1@xmath70 bias in @xmath2 .
these results are only an indication , but it is noteworthy that most nuclear models have been tuned on carbon data and thus , the generators can be expected to be most accurate for nuclei around carbon .
nevertheless , it is somewhat surprising that a small step in atomic mass from @xmath71 to @xmath72 leads already to a sizable bias .
what would happen if one tried to extrapolate to argon with @xmath73 remains pure speculation .
l@l@|@c@c@c@c@c@ true & fitted & @xmath74 & @xmath75 $ ] & @xmath76 & @xmath63 & fig .  no . + genie ( @xmath26o ) & genie ( @xmath43c ) & @xmath77 & 2.49@xmath78 & 2.28 &  & [ fig : targets ] + & & @xmath79 & 2.69@xmath78 & 47.64 &  & [ fig : gen1 ] & & @xmath80 & 2.55@xmath78 & 20.95 & 5% & [ fig : gen2 ] + gibuu ( @xmath26o ) & gibuu ( @xmath26o ) w / o mec & @xmath81 & 2.44@xmath78 & 22.38 &  & [ fig : mec1 ] + genie ( @xmath26o ) & genie ( @xmath26o ) w / o mec & @xmath82 & 2.36@xmath78 & 19.54 &  & [ fig : mec2 ] +    interestingly , we find even for carbon very large differences in the shape of the qe event rate spectrum between genie and gibuu which we trace back to differences in the implementation of final state interactions , see sec .
[ sec : gen ] .
these differences are large enough to introduce a bias in the mass splitting of many standard deviations
. the resulting minimum of the @xmath44 would also be very large as shown in fig .
[ fig : gen1 ] . introducing an uncertainty on the energy scale of 5%
reduces the resulting tension and brings also the @xmath44 back to acceptable levels , but still leaves a 1@xmath4 bias in both the mass splitting and mixing angle , see fig .
[ fig : gen2 ] . besides
, it is also not clear whether an oscillation experiment would have any freedom left to include such a large calibration error in the fit .
finally , the recent miniboone results seem to imply that multi - nucleon effects play an important role for neutrino energies @xmath83 .
there is a large variety of models in the literature trying to describe these effects .
therefore , we test the effect of removing the multi - nucleon correlation in the fit of data which has been generated including those .
this is again a case where the two generators produce different effects  in gibuu the mixing angle is most affected whereas in genie it is the mass splitting seeing the bulk of the effect , which is obvious from fig .
[ fig : mec ] .    in summary , we find that changing nuclear targets , the used event generator or the implementation of multi - nucleon effects , each leave a bias comparable to the statistical errors in the determination of the mixing parameters , as illustrated in tab .  [
tab : summary ] .
any experiment aiming at high precision measurements of oscillation parameters like the leptonic cp phase will have to develop a strategy to deal with these uncertainties in a transparent fashion .
one important step in this direction would be to make the event generators accessible to the community .
we have only considered light targets like carbon and oxygen and it is unclear how to extrapolate to heavier targets like argon without additional data .
the methods presented here are well suited to be extended to experiments aiming to determine the cp phase and the neutrino mass hierarchy .
the authors would like to thank s.  dytman , u.  mosel and o.  lalakulich for their support , which lead to successful simulation results .
we would also like to thank d.  meloni , j.  nieves , n. rocco and m.  vicente vacas for useful discussions , and o.  benhar for the precious discussions and for careful reading of this manuscript .
this work has been supported by the u.s .
department of energy under award number .
in this appendix we briefly describe the details on the implementation of the @xmath44 and the inclusion of systematic uncertainties .
all fits to the oscillation parameters presented in sec .
[ sec : results ] are performed using globes  @xcite . unless otherwise stated , the true values of the oscillation parameters
are set to the following : @xmath84 a @xmath44 analysis is done to extract the best fit values for the oscillation parameters as well as the allowed confidence regions at 1 , 2 and 3@xmath4 cl . for each energy bin @xmath21 and detector @xmath85 , a contribution to the @xmath44
is computed as : @xmath86 with @xmath87 here , @xmath88 ( @xmath89 ) refer to the true ( fitted ) event rates observed at a detector @xmath85 in an energy bin @xmath21 , @xmath90 indicates the dependence on the test values for the oscillation parameters , and @xmath91 and @xmath92 stand for the nuisance parameters associated to flux and normalization uncertainties , respectively .
it should be noted that @xmath88 depends only on the true values assumed for the oscillation parameters , while @xmath89 depends on the pair of values we are testing as well as on the nuisance parameters . in addition , the nuisance parameter associated to the normalization error is bin - to - bin correlated , while the one associated to the flux uncertainty is bin - to - bin uncorrelated . these will help to accommodate the normalization and shape differences in the event rates due to different nuclear models .
the final @xmath44 reads : @xmath93 where the two last terms are the pull - terms associated to the nuisance parameters @xmath94 , and @xmath95 is the prior uncertainty assumed for each systematic error ( which have been set to 20% in all cases ) .
all oscillation parameters are kept fixed during the fit . since the analysis is done for the disappearance @xmath96 channel only , we believe that marginalization will not have a relevant impact on our results . finally , the sum in eq .
[ eq : chi2 ] is done over 100  mev bins between 0.2 and 2.0 gev .
nevertheless , the migration matrices and cross - sections are computed up to @xmath97 gev in true neutrino energy in order to get the full contribution from the high - energy tail of the flux .
in this appendix we show the complete set of migration matrices used in the oscillation analysis for genie ( fig .
[ fig : genie_matrix ] ) and gibuu ( fig .
[ fig : gibuu_matrix ] ) using oxygen as the target nucleus . the number of events as function of reconstructed neutrino energy for the various neutrino interaction modes , as described in sec .
[ sec : gen ] , is also shown in fig .  [ fig : event_distribution_carbon ] for oxygen .
the results for carbon are similar and therefore will not be shown here .


several years ago , observations of supernovae of type ia ( sne ia ) demonstrated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating @xcite .
associated with this acceleration is dark energy , a component of the universe with negative pressure , that makes up a significant fraction of the total energy density .
recent years have seen the supernova evidence for dark energy continue to mount @xcite
. meanwhile , cosmic microwave background ( cmb ) data from the wmap project @xcite , in combination with information about either the hubble constant @xcite or the galaxy power spectrum @xcite , also requires the existence of dark energy .
cross - correlations between cmb anisotropies and matter power spectrum inhomogeneities provide evidence for a late - time integrated sachs - wolfe ( isw ) effect @xcite .
this isw effect indicates a recent change in the inhomogeneous gravitational potential , providing further evidence for dark energy .
one way to characterize the dark energy is to measure its equation of state , the ratio @xmath8 of its pressure @xmath9 and energy density @xmath10 .
the simplest model of the dark energy is a cosmological constant @xmath11 , which has a constant @xmath12 .
quintessence models describe the dark energy as a dynamical scalar field with an equation of state @xmath13 , and in general , @xmath0 will not be constant in time @xcite .
furthermore , models of extended quintessence or `` phantom energy '' even allow @xmath14 @xcite .
models of the universe incorporating a cosmological constant or quintessence , in addition to cold dark matter , are known as @xmath11cdm or qcdm models , respectively .
discovering whether or not the dark energy is a cosmological constant is the primary goal of the study of dark energy .
if dark energy is shown not to be a cosmological constant , then the next important issues are whether or not @xmath14 , which can be theoretically problematic @xcite ( however , see @xcite for an alternative viewpoint ) , and whether or not @xmath0 is changing with time . while a quintessence with constant @xmath15 is very difficult to distinguish quantitatively from a cosmological constant , the qualitative difference for fundamental physics is enormous , so it is critical that the maximum effort be made to reduce the uncertainty in @xmath16 and its time derivative .
ultimately , the precise quantitative values of @xmath0 and its time derivative are important for model building , but this is less crucial , at present , than the qualitative issue of whether the dark energy is dynamical or not . in order to address such questions about the nature of the dark energy ,
it is crucial that the equation of state and its time variation be determined observationally .
it has been known for some time that the cosmological probes used for stuyding the dark energy are plagued by numerous parameter degeneracies @xcite . because of these degeneracies ,
a large uncertainty in a cosmological parameter not directly related to the dark energy sector ( _ e.g. _ , the matter density ) can lead to a large uncertainty in the dark energy equation of state .
this sensitivity to other parameters means that one must incorporate the uncertainties in all parameters to obtain a realistic estimate of the uncertainties in the dark energy equation of state .
in particular , one should avoid the use of strong priors on the form of @xmath17 , the values of other parameters , and independent information coming from other experiments .
these can lead to underestimates of the uncertainty in @xmath0 by a very large factor .
we will also discuss how standard likelihood marginalization can give a misleading impression of the uncertainty in @xmath0 .
the analysis presented here employs a @xmath18 minimization procedure in order to avoid possible problems with marginalization , and assumes only weak prior constraints .
we compare our @xmath18 minimization with the standard approach , the marginalization of a probability function computed using monte carlo markov chains .
it is argued that our procedure gives a more conservative assessment of constraints in certain degenerate parameter spaces . in this sense ,
our procedure and the markov chain are complementary , as we will discuss .
we apply this @xmath18 minimization analysis to the currently available data .
the simultaneous determination of the dark energy equation of state and its red shift derivative is difficult without the combination of data from several cosmological probes .
thus we analyze the latest data from wmap , sn ia searches , and the sloan digital sky survey .
strong priors are avoided to prevent the underestimation of dark energy constraints .
although the data favor @xmath19 and @xmath20 , we are unable to rule out the cosmological constant conclusively .
furthermore , we find the constraints on @xmath17 to depend strongly on the parameterization chosen for @xmath17 , as well as on the location of the best - fit model in parameter space , despite the fact that we have restricted our study to two - parameter equations of state . we also list possible biases in the cosmological probes , and discuss their effects on our results .
our conclusion that the cosmological constant is consistent with current data agrees with previous analyses , as we discuss in sec .
[ sec : discussion ] .
this establishes the validity of our analytic methods , which we can then apply with confidence to projections of future measurements .    since the cosmological constant is consistent with current data , it is useful to ask precisely how well dark energy may be constrained in the future using known cosmological probes .
we address this question by applying our @xmath18 minimization procedure to simulations of the data from these probes .
besides the cmb and sne ia , we simulate data from a probe of weak gravitational lensing ( wl ) . in the future
, wl is expected to be useful for constraining dark energy @xcite .
most of these studies have demonstrated that wl breaks parameter degeneracies in the cmb analysis , and have shown the effectiveness of the combination of cmb and wl data in constraining dark energy .
our study is the first to use a joint analysis of simulated cmb , sn ia , and wl data , rather than imposing prior constraints as a `` replacement '' for one of these data sets .
this is especially important for parameters such as @xmath21 and @xmath22 , which have strong degeneracies with other parameters .
since our goal is the study of @xmath17 constraints , rather than general parameter constraints , we assume the cosmological model outside of the dark energy sector to be as simple as possible . within this model , we are careful to avoid strong priors on the cosmological parameters .
it is well understood that each of these cosmological probes has systematic uncertainties associated with it , and that significant progress needs to be made in order for each one to reach the level of precision necessary for constraining dark energy .
therefore , we attempt at every opportunity to strike a reasonable balance between optimism and realism .    the paper is organized as follows .
[ subsec : demodel ] discusses several parameterizations of the dark energy equation of state .
our choice of cosmological parameters , and the prior constraints imposed on them , are listed in sec .
[ subsec : cosmoparamdegenpriors ] .
@xmath18 minimization is compared with marginalization in sec .
[ subsec : gridmin ] . sec .
[ subsec : currentchi2 ] summarizes our analysis of current data , and secs .
[ subsec : snmc]-[subsec : wlmc ] describe the simulation and analysis of future data .
finally , sec .
[ sec : discussion ] lists and interprets our findings , for our analysis of current data as well as our forecasts of future constraints , and sec . [ sec : conclusions ] discusses our conclusions .
in the spirit of reasonable optimism , we have assumed that the dark energy may be parameterized using an equation of state @xmath23 , where @xmath9 and @xmath10 are the pressure and dark energy density , respectively , and @xmath17 is an unknown function of red shift .
we have also assumed that the dark energy sound speed is @xmath24 . without any theoretical guidance about the form of @xmath17 ,
the space of all possibilities is equivalent to an uncountably infinite set of cosmological parameters .
the data depend on @xmath17 only through a multiple integral relation @xcite , so we lack the large number of measurements of @xmath17 that would be necessary for non - parametric inference @xcite
. thus we must describe @xmath17 using a small number of parameters in order to keep the analysis tractable .
the danger is that there is no `` natural '' way to parameterize @xmath17 , so the choice of parameterizations is essentially arbitrary .
ideally , one would like to verify that any constraints obtained on @xmath17 are parameterization - independent .
however , the space of all possible parameterizations is infinite - dimensional , so we re back to square one . the only feasable option is to test for parameterization - independence by comparing constraints on a small number of `` reasonable - looking '' parameterizations .    to begin with , we assume that @xmath17 is an analytic function , and that it can be approximated at @xmath25 by the first few terms in its taylor series about @xmath5 .
all known probes are sensitive to an integral of some function of @xmath17 , rather than to @xmath17 itself , so any `` bumps and wiggles '' in @xmath17 are effectively smoothed out .
it is reasonable to assume that this smoothed @xmath17 can be approximated by a low - degree polynomial in @xmath1 out to @xmath26 . from now on we proceed based on this assumption , with the caveat that the `` true '' equation of state can have added `` bumps and wiggles '' that disappear when smoothed .
( note , however , that any large - scale kinks or sharp changes in the actual equation of state can be missed by such simple parameterizations .
for an alternative approach , see , _
e.g. _ , @xcite . )
the simplest parameterizations useful for describing dynamical dark energy have at least two parameters , one describing the equation of state @xmath21 at @xmath5 and the other parameterizing its red shift derivative @xmath27 .
a few parameterizations in the literature are @xmath28(note that @xmath29 in ( [ eqn : eosuros ] ) differs by a factor of @xmath30 from the definition introduced in @xcite .
we chose ( [ eqn : eosuros ] ) in order to facilitate comparison with ( [ eqn : eoslinder ] ) and ( [ eqn : eosparam ] ) . )
we are interested in the simplest two - parameter equations of state , and as we will see , ( [ eqn : eossimple ] ) is of limited utility for studying high red shift data .
this leaves only eq .
( [ eqn : eoslinder ] ) out of the three parameterizations above .
since we would like to compare two `` reasonable '' two - parameter equations of state , we introduce a fourth parameterization , @xmath31 dark energy constraints based on ( [ eqn : eosparam ] ) and ( [ eqn : eoslinder ] ) may be compared in order to estimate the parameterization - dependence of our results .
table [ tab : eosparam ] compares all four parameterizations using their present - day derivatives @xmath22 , their mean low red shift ( @xmath32 ) derivatives @xmath33 , and their high red shift limits @xmath34 .
.summary of the dark energy equation of state parameterizations used in the literature .
[ tab : eosparam ] [ cols="^,^,^,^ " , ]      contours for cmb and sn ia `` data '' simulated using the fiducial models ( @xmath35 , @xmath36 ) ( top ) and ( @xmath37 , @xmath38 ) ( bottom ) .
the @xmath39 , @xmath40 , and @xmath41 contours are shown .
the location of the fiducial model is marked by a `` + '' sign.,width=316 ]     @xmath42 & @xmath43 + sn ia & prior @xmath44 & @xmath45 & @xmath46 + cmb + & standard & @xmath47 & @xmath48 + sn ia & @xmath49 in ( [ eqn : dctt]-[eqn : covteee ] ) & @xmath50 & @xmath51 + & cmb @xmath52 & @xmath53 & @xmath54 + & 1 yr .
wmap & @xmath55 & @xmath56 + & sn @xmath57 & @xmath58 & @xmath59 + & sn @xmath60 & @xmath61 & @xmath62 + & sn @xmath63 & @xmath64 & @xmath65 + cmb + & standard & @xmath66 & @xmath67 + sn ia + & wl on linear & @xmath68 & @xmath69 + wl & scales only & & + & cmb @xmath52 & @xmath70 & @xmath71 + & sn @xmath57 & @xmath72 & @xmath73 + & sn @xmath63 & @xmath74 & @xmath75 +    next , the analysis was repeated with two different fiducial models , chosen to lie approximately along the line of degeneracy in the ( @xmath76,@xmath77 ) plane . as shown in fig .
[ fig : cmbsn.varfid ] , the model ( @xmath35 , @xmath36 ) had @xmath2 uncertainties of 0.73 and 2.58 on @xmath76 and @xmath77 , respectively , which are significantly larger than those reported above .
meanwhile the model ( @xmath37 , @xmath38 ) had uncertainties of 0.48 and 1.58 .
these are consistent with our constraints obtained using the @xmath11cdm fiducial model .
returning to our @xmath11cdm fiducial model , we repeated the analysis with different assumptions about the data in order to test the robustness of our forecast constraints .
table [ tab : checkfore ] lists the new constraints obtained .
the standard deviations in our original constraints are about @xmath78 , so we did not consider a modification to be significant unless it changed constraints by at least @xmath79 .
first we checked to what extent a cmb simulation without the `` extra '' factor of @xmath80 in the denominator of the covariance matrix ( [ eqn : dctt ] , [ eqn : dcee ] , [ eqn : dcte ] , [ eqn : covxx ] , [ eqn : covttte ] , [ eqn : covttee ] , [ eqn : covteee ] ) would improve our constraints .
the difference turns out to be negligible .
in fact , the final constraints are relatively independent of the details of the cmb simulation and analysis .
cutting off the cmb power spectrum at a maximum multipole of @xmath81 , or replacing the wmap 8 year data set with a simulated 1 year data set , lead to insignificant changes in the dark energy constraints . on the other hand , the constraints are very sensitive to changes in the quality of the supernova data . changing the sn ia systematic uncertainty , or its red shift dependence , leads to significant changes in the dark energy constraints .
meanwhile , the final @xmath2 uncertainties provided by the combination of cmb and sn ia data are nearly identical to those found by fixing @xmath82 in the sn analysis alone .
thus , in some sense , adding the cmb data set is equivalent to fixing @xmath82 as a function of @xmath76 and @xmath77 in the supernova analysis .
we began sec .
[ subsec : forecasts ] by identifying three milestones for comparing constraints on @xmath76 and @xmath77 .
recall that the first milestone is to distinguish between a cosmological constant and a dark energy with @xmath83 . from our forecasts
we find @xmath84 , which is more than twice as high as the uncertainty of @xmath85 needed to distinguish between the two dark energy models .
the second milestone , to distinguish between @xmath11cdm and tracker models of dark energy , is also not yet reached by the combination of cmb and sn ia data sets .
we find @xmath86 at @xmath87 , twice the uncertainty of @xmath88 needed to reach this milestone .
we can see from fig .
[ fig : fore - cmbsn ] that , if we shifted the contours to be centered on ( @xmath89 , @xmath90 ) , then the cosmological constant model as well as some of the tracker models ( @xmath91 , @xmath92 ) would be within the @xmath2 contours . thus we can not confidently claim that the combination of cmb and sn ia data can rule out either the @xmath11cdm model or the trackers . finally , this combination is far from reaching the third milestone , which would require that the uncertainties in @xmath76 and @xmath77 be reduced by over an order of magnitude .
the addition of weak lensing to the analysis resulted in the contours shown in fig .
[ fig : fore - cmbsnwl ] , with grid spacings @xmath93 and @xmath94 .
weak lensing tightened the @xmath2 constraints to @xmath95 and @xmath96 .
the standard deviations in the @xmath2 uncertainties , found from five separate simulations , were @xmath97 and @xmath98 in @xmath42 and @xmath43 , respectively .
as above , the standard deviations in each of the @xmath76 and @xmath77 uncertainties were about @xmath78 .
we checked our results using a fisher matrix calculation and found the @xmath2 constraints @xmath99 and @xmath100 in @xmath76 and @xmath77 , respetively , consistent with our minimization results .
meanwhile , the minimum @xmath2 uncertaity in @xmath17 was found to be @xmath101 at @xmath102 .
our constraints are about the same as those forecast for snap sne ia with planck priors , but worse by a factor of two than snap sne ia with weak lensing , as listed in table [ tab : forecast ] .
meanwhile , galaxy cluster measurements based on the more ambitious lsst survey claim an improvement by a factor of three over our forecast @xmath76 constraints @xcite .    , @xmath40 , and @xmath41 contours
are shown .
the location of the fiducial model is marked by a `` + '' sign.,width=316 ]     contours for cmb , sn ia , and wl `` data '' simulated using the fiducial models ( @xmath35 , @xmath36 ) ( top ) and ( @xmath37 , @xmath38 ) ( bottom ) .
the @xmath39 , @xmath40 , and @xmath41 contours are shown .
the location of the fiducial model is marked by a `` + '' sign.,width=316 ]    the analysis was repeated with two different fiducial models in order to assess the dependence of dark energy constraints on the fiducial model . moving from the @xmath11cdm fiducial to
the fiducial model ( @xmath35 , @xmath36 ) increases uncertainties in @xmath76 and @xmath77 by about @xmath103 each , to @xmath104 and @xmath105 , respectively . moving in the other direction along the degeneracy curve , to the fiducial model ( @xmath37 , @xmath38 )
, leads to a modest decrease in @xmath76 and @xmath77 uncertainties to @xmath106 and @xmath107 , respectively .
qualitatively , this is the same behavior as was seen with the cmb and sn ia data combination .
further tests of the robustness of our constraints revealed that , once again , cmb data at @xmath108 do not contribute much to the dark energy constraints ( see table [ tab : checkfore ] ) . meanwhile ,
if the weak lensing analysis is restricted to linear scales , then constraints on @xmath76 and @xmath77 weaken considerably , as shown in table [ tab : checkfore ] .
this is consistent with the findings of @xcite .     as a function of @xmath1 , for the data combinations cmb + sn
ia ( upper , solid line ) and cmb + sn ia + wl ( lower , dashed line).,width=220 ]    comparing @xmath2 constraints with and without weak lensing ( including nonlinear scales ) , we see that the uncertainties in @xmath76 shrink by a factor of @xmath109 , and the uncertainties on @xmath77 shrink by a factor of @xmath110 . in order to understand the contribution of weak lensing to the overall analysis
, we compared @xmath17 uncertainties as functions of redshift for the combinations cmb + sn ia and cmb + sn ia + wl , as shown in fig .
[ fig:2_sigma_w_vs_z ] . without weak lensing , @xmath17 is well constrained only around @xmath111
. evidently , weak lensing adds information on @xmath0 at some higher red shift , complementing the constraints from cmb and sn ia .
the result is a @xmath17 uncertainty that is not only lower , but much more uniform across the red shift range .
this improvement allows the combination of cmb , sn ia , and wl data to reach two of the three milestones identified at the beginning of this section . at @xmath6
we find @xmath112 , which will easily allow us to distinguish between a cosmological constant and dark energy models with @xmath113 .
thus , weak lensing will either confirm or conclusively rule out the dark energies with @xmath114 favored by our analysis of current data .
secondly , the constraint @xmath115 at @xmath102 is tight enough that this combination of data can distinguish between the cosmological constant and tracker models of dark energy .
thus , weak lensing will allow us to rule out a portion of the most interesting region of parameter space .
on the other hand , our forecast dark energy constraints do not reach the third milestone , which calls for these @xmath2 uncertainties to be reduced to @xmath116 .
in particular , the uncertainty in @xmath77 is higher than this by over an order of magnitude .
we have not included in our analysis either weak lensing tomography or galaxy cluster measurements , which may lower statistical uncertainties even further @xcite .
these have been analyzed by others and look promising .
they suggest that we can approach the third milestone , but there is no method suggested so far for pushing substantially beyond their forecast constraints .    moreover , we remind the reader that the constraints discussed above , as well as the improvement due to weak lensing , are based on several optimistic assumptions listed at the beginning of sec . [
subsec : forecasts ] .
systematic effects , such as dust - related dimming of the supernovae , can increase uncertainties in @xmath76 and @xmath77 . also , if the best - fit dark energy model is near the boundary of the ( @xmath76 , @xmath77 ) parameter space , then @xmath17 parameterization dependence will further weaken our constraints on the dark energy parameters . in the worst - case scenario @xmath117 , the best fit model will be near the boundary of parameter space ; parameterization - related uncertainties in @xmath76 and @xmath22 could completely swamp any improvements .
the purpose of this investigation has been to determine how well @xmath17 can be resolved using currently planned astronomical observations .
the well - known challenge is that individual measurements do not constrain @xmath17 directly , but rather some functional that depends on @xmath17 , integrals of @xmath17 , and a large set of additional parameters .
we have shown that the uncertainties in measuring @xmath0 and @xmath4 at @xmath5 can be reduced dramatically by the beginning of the next decade , using a combination of the highest - quality cmb , sn , and wl data .
however , the remaining uncertainties , @xmath3 and @xmath7 , will not be enough to determine definitively whether dark energy is inert ( a cosmological constant ) or dynamical ( quintessence ) , unless the true value of @xmath0 differs from @xmath30 by significantly more than @xmath88 .
unfortunately , many quintessence models have @xmath118 and @xmath119 .
our numerical studies illustrate how the measurements combine to produce this constraint .
even the best supernova measurements are degenerate under certain combinations of variations in @xmath21 , @xmath22 , and @xmath82 @xcite .
cmb constraints are degenerate along a surface in the space spanned by @xmath21 , @xmath22 , @xmath120 , and @xmath82 .
however , we have found ( fig .
[ fig : fore - cmbsn ] ) that combining cmb and sn measurements effectively collapses the degeneracy in the @xmath82 direction , leaving only the degeneracy in the @xmath21 , @xmath22 plane .
we have shown that the cmb contribution to this degeneracy breaking comes entirely from the @xmath52 region of the power spectrum . since even the first year of wmap data has reduced uncertainties in this range to near the cosmic variance level , we do not expect a significant improvement in dark energy constraints from further wmap or planck cmb data .
of course , this relies on our choice and number of cosmological parameters , and in particular , our assumption that @xmath121 .
if curvature were considered , the angular diameter distance degeneracy would degrade the information on @xmath82 provided by the first cmb acoustic peak , and better information on subsequent peaks could prove valuable .
also , we have not considered nonlinear effects such as the gravitational lensing of the cmb power spectra @xcite , which could provide valuable information on structure formation
.    meanwhile , the final constraints are sensitive to the supernova systematic uncertainties . a @xmath122 increase in @xmath123 , from @xmath124 to @xmath125 ,
changes the @xmath2 constraints on @xmath21 by about @xmath126 .
after the cmb and sn data sets are combined , the remaining degeneracy runs along curves of @xmath17 which intersect one another near @xmath127 .
the uncertainty in @xmath128 is roughly @xmath129 at the @xmath2 level , depending on what functional forms for @xmath17 are considered .    to break the degeneracy between @xmath21 and @xmath22 , more data must be co - added that can constrain @xmath17 at a greater red shift .
we have studied the weak lensing power spectrum as a means of breaking the @xmath21-@xmath22 degeneracy .
our previous conclusion about the highest cmb multipoles remains valid ; cmb data at @xmath108 do not contribute to dark energy constraints even when weak lensing is considered . furthermore , any improvements due to weak lensing depend crucially on our ability to use shear measurements on nonlinear scales .
this will require a better understanding of systematics , such as intrinsic alignments of galaxies , as well as more accurate computations of the matter power spectrum on nonlinear scales in dynamical dark energy cosmologies . when cmb , sn , and wl are combined , the supernovae constrain @xmath17 at low red shifts @xmath130 , while weak lensing constrains @xmath17 at higher red shifts ( see fig .
[ fig:2_sigma_w_vs_z ] ) , leading to improvements of a factor of @xmath109 in @xmath76 and a factor of @xmath110 in @xmath77 .      *
distinguish between @xmath131 and @xmath113 .
cmb and sn alone are unable to reach this milestone , while the combination of cmb , sn , and wl data can distinguish between these equations of state at the @xmath132 level . *
distinguish between @xmath12 and tracker models with @xmath91 , @xmath133 .
once again , cmb and sn alone are unable to reach this milestone
. with wl added , @xmath11 and trackers can be distinguished at the @xmath2 level . *
reduce @xmath2 uncertainties in @xmath0 and @xmath4 to @xmath134 .
even with cmb , sn , and wl data , this milestone remains unreached .
thus the combination of cmb , sn ia , and weak lensing is a promising tool for improving dark energy constraints .
however , in the worst - case scenario that experiments find @xmath135 , these three probes can not decisively rule out quintessence models in which @xmath0 differs from @xmath30 by a few percent .
other works have considered highly ambitious surveys of the cluster abundance evolution @xcite , assuming large numbers of observed clusters , or of weak lensing tomography @xcite , based on multiple red shift bins and observations of large fractions of the sky .
both probes measure the structure growth rate as a function of red shift .
these have the potential to improve statistical uncertainties significantly , by factors of 3 - 5 compared with our results , but concerns remain about systematic uncertainties @xcite . even taking the current estimated errors , uncertainties in @xmath76 and @xmath77 are several percent , which still allows a range of plausible quintessence models . thus ,
unless we are lucky enough to find a dark energy that is very different from the cosmological constant , new kinds of measurements or an experiment more sophisticated than those yet conceived will be needed in order to settle the dark energy issue .
we thank n. bahcall , r. brustein , j. gunn , c. hirata , s. ho , e. linder , a. makarov , i. maor , j. ostriker , a. riess , u. seljak , d. spergel , c. stubbs , y. wang , and d. wesley for useful conversations .
our analysis was run on a beowulf cluster at princeton university , supported in part by nsf grant ast-0216105 .
this material is based upon work supported under a national science foundation graduate research fellowship ( au ) .
m.i . acknowledges the support of the natural sciences and engineering research council of canada .
this work was supported in part by us department of energy grant de - fg02 - 91er40671 ( pjs ) .
a. g. riess , _ et al .
. j. * 116 * , 1009 - 1038 ( 1998 ) .
s. perlmutter , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 517 * , 565 - 586 ( 1999 ) .
a. g. riess , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 536 * , 62 ( 2000 ) .
a. g. riess , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 560 * , 49 - 71 ( 2001 ) .
j. l. tonry , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 594 * , 1 - 24 ( 2003 ) .
r. a. knop , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 598 * , 102 - 137 ( 2003 ) .
b. j. barris , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 602 * , 571 - 594 ( 2004 ) .
a. g. riess , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 607 * , 665 - 687 ( 2004 ) . c. l. bennett , _ et al .
_ , astrophys .
. ser . * 148 * , 1 ( 2003 ) .
d. n. spergel , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. ser . * 148 * , 175 ( 2003 ) .
w. l. freedman , _ et al .
_ , astrophys .
j. * 553 * , 47 - 72 ( 2001 ) .
m. tegmark , _ et al .
_ , astrophys .
j. * 606 * , 702 - 740 ( 2004 ) .
m. tegmark , _ et al .
d * 69 * , 103501 ( 2004 ) .
p. fosalba , e. gaztanaga , and f. castander , astrophys .
j. * 597 * , l89 - 92 ( 2003 ) .
p. fosalba and e gaztanaga , mon . not .
* 350 * , l37-l41 ( 2004 ) .
r. scranton , _
et al . _ ,
( submitted ) [ astro - ph/0307335 ] ( 2003 ) .
n. afshordi , y .- s .
loh , and m. a. strauss , phys .
d 69 * 8 * , 083524 ( 2004 ) .
s. boughn and r. crittenden , nature , * 427 * , 45 - 47 ( 2004 ) .
n. padmanabhan , _ et al .
d ( submitted ) [ astro - ph/0410360 ] ( 2004 ) .
p. j. e. peebles and b. ratra , astrophys .
* 325 * , l17-l20 ( 1988 ) . b. ratra and p. j. e. peebles , phys . rev .
d 37 * 12 * , 3406 - 3427 ( 1988 ) .
i. zlatev , l wang , and p. j. steinhardt , phys .
82 * , 896 - 899 ( 1999 ) .
p. j. steinhardt , l. wang , and i. zlatev , phys .
d * 59 * , 123504 ( 1999 ) .
r. r. caldwell , phys .
b * 545 * , 23 - 29 ( 2002 ) .
s. m. carroll , m. hoffman , and m. trodden , phys.rev .
d * 68 * , 023509 ( 2003 ) . v. k. onemli and r. p. woodard , class .
* 19 * , 4607 ( 2002 ) .
v. k. onemli and r. p. woodard , phys .
d * 70 * , 107301 ( 2004 ) .
t. brunier , v. k. onemli , and r. p. woodard , class .
* 22 * , 59 ( 2005 ) .
m. doran and j. jckel , phys .
d * 66 * , 043519 ( 2002 ) .
s. dedeo , [ astro - ph/0411283 ] ( 2004 ) .
j. r. bond , _ et al .
* 72 * , 13 - 16 ( 1994 ) .
j. r. bond , g. efstathiou , and m. tegmark , mon . not .
* 291 * , l33-l41 ( 1997 ) .
m. zaldarriaga , d. spergel , and u. seljak , astrophys .
j. * 488 * , 1 - 13 ( 1997 ) .
m. white , astrophys.j .
* 506 * , 495 ( 1998 ) .
g. huey , _
et al . _ ,
phys.rev . d*59 * , 063005 ( 1999 ) . g. efstathiou and j. r. bond , mon . not .
r. astron . soc . *
304 * 75 - 97 ( 1999 ) .
i. maor , r. brustein , and p. j. steinhardt , phys.rev.lett . * 86 * , 6 - 9 ( 2001 ) .
w. hu , phys .
d * 65 * , 023003 ( 2002 ) .
d. huterer , phys .
d * 65 * , 063001 ( 2002 ) .
g. aldering , _
( submitted ) [ astro - ph/0405232 ] ( 2004 ) .
[ see also http://snap.lbl.gov ] .
y .- s . song and l. knox , phys .
d * 70 * , 063510 ( 2004 ) .
l. knox , a. albrecht , and y.s .
song , [ astro - ph/0408141 ] ( 2004 ) .
s. wang , _ et .
d * 70 * , 123008 ( 2004 ) .
d. huterer and m. s. turner , phys .
d * 64 * , 123527 ( 2001 ) .
k. benabed and l. van waerbeke , phys.rev .
d * 70 * , 123515 ( 2004 ) .
k. abazajian and s. dodelson , phys .
* 91 * 041301 ( 2003 ) .
a. refregier _
j. * 127 * , 3102 ( 2004 ) .
a. heavens , mon . not .
* 343 * 1327 ( 2003 ) .
p. simon , l. j. king and p. schneider , accepted by a&a , [ astro - ph/0309032 ] ( 2003 ) .
b. jain and a. taylor , phys.rev.lett .
* 91 * , 141302 2003 .
g. m. bernstein , b. jain , astrophys.j .
* 600 * , 17 ( 2004 ) .
w. jang , _ et al .
_ , third statistical challenges in modern astronomy conference , 221 - 241 ( 2003 ) .
b. a. bassett , p. s. corasaniti , and m. kunz , astrophys . j. lett .
* 617 * , 1 ( 2004 ) .
m. chevallier , d. polarski , and a. starobinsky , int . j. mod
d * 10 * , 213 ( 2001 ) .
e. v. linder , phys .
lett . * 90 * , 091301 ( 2003 ) .
u. seljak , _ et al .
_ , [ astro - ph/0407372 ] ( 2004 ) .
r. r. caldwell , _ et al .
_ , astrophys.j .
* 591 * , l75-l78 ( 2003 ) .
r. r. caldwell and m. doran , phys .
d * 69 * , 103517 ( 2004 ) .
m. ishak , _ et al .
d * 69 * , 083514 ( 2004 ) .
i. tereno , _ et al .
_ , astron .
( submitted ) [ astro - ph/0404317 ] ( 2004 ) .
m. ishak , c. hirata , phys .
d phys.rev .
d * 71 * , 023002 ( 2005 ) .
w. h. press , s. a. teukolsky , w. t. vetterling , and b. p. flannery , _ numerical recipes in c : the art of scientific computing _ , ( cambridge university press , cambridge , 1992 ) .
m. m. phillips , astrophys . j. lett . *
413 * , l105-l108 ( 1993 ) .
m. hamuy , _ et al .
* 26 * , 1362 ( 1994 ) .
a. g. riess , w. h. press , and r. p. kirshner , astrophys .
j. * 438 * , l17 - 20 ( 1995 ) .
a. g. riess , w. h. press , and r. p. kirshner , astrophys .
j. * 473 * , 88 ( 1996 ) .
s. perlmutter , _ et .
_ , astrophys.j .
* 483 * , 565 ( 1997 ) .
u. seljak and m. zaldarriaga , astrophys .
j. * 469 * , 437 - 444 ( 1996 ) .
r. caldwell ( private communication ) .
l. verde , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. ser . * 148 * , 195 ( 2003 ) .
g. hinshaw , _
et al . _ ,
. ser . * 148 * , 63 ( 2003 ) .
a. kogut , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
148 * , 161 ( 2003 ) .
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/sdsspars.html ( 2003 )
. w. m. wood - vasey , _ et al .
_ , new astron . rev .
* 48 * , 637 - 640 ( 2004 ) .
[ see also http://home.fnal.gov/~annis/astrophys/decam/ ] .
a. g. kim , _
et al . _ , mon . not .
* 347 * , 909 - 920 ( 2004 ) .
[ see also http://snls.in2p3.fr/conf/posters/aas203/aas04snls.v4.ppt for a recent poster ] . c. stubbs ( private communication ) .
w. l. freedman , [ astro - ph/0411176 ] ( 2004 ) .
r. c. smith , _ et al .
. soc . * 34 * , 1232 ( 2002 ) .
p. m. garnavich , _ et al .
34 * , 1233 ( 2002 ) .
r. p. kirshner , _ et al .
_ , am . astron .
soc . meeting 202 ( 2003 ) .
[ see also http://www.ctio.noao.edu/~wsne ] .
g . strolger , am .
meeting 205 ( 2005 ) .
d. s. madgwick , _ et al .
_ , astrophys
. j. * 599 * , l33-l36 ( 2003 ) .
r. pain , _ et al .
. soc . * 34 * , 1169 ( 2002 ) .
pritchet [ astro - ph/0406242 ] ( 2004 ) .
m. sullivan , [ astro - ph/0410594 ] ( 2004 ) .
j. r. bond , a. h. jaffe , and l. knox , astrophys .
j. * 533 * , 19 ( 2000 ) . ya .
b. zeldovich and r. a. sunyaev , astrophys . & space sci . , * 4 * , 301 ( 1969 ) .
r. a. sunyaev and ya .
b. zeldovich , comments astrophys .
space phys . , * 4 * , 173 ( 1972 ) .
a. blanchard and j. schneider , astron .
astrophys . * 184 * , 1 ( 1987 ) .
a. kashlinsky , astrophys .
* 331 * , l1 ( 1988 ) .
k. m. huffenberger , u. seljak , and a. makarov , phys .
d * 70 * , 063002 ( 2004 ) .
u. seljak and c. m. hirata , phys .
d * 69 * , 043005 ( 2004 ) . c. m. hirata ,
d * 70 * , 103501 ( 2004 ) .
lawrence and a.e .
lange , bull .
soc . , * 29 * , 1273 ( 1997 ) .
r. j. laureijs , international astronomical union .
symposium no . 216
n.   kaiser , astrophys .
j. * 388 * , 272 , ( 1992 ) .
b.   jain and u.  seljak , astrophys .
j. * 484 * , 560 , ( 1997 ) .
n.   kaiser , astrophys .
j. * 498 * , 26 , ( 1998 ) .
j. m. bardeen , j. r. bond , n. kaiser , and a. s. szalay , astrophys .
j. , * 304 * , 15 ( 1986 ) .
chung - pei ma , r.r , caldwell , paul bode and limin wang , astrophys .
letter * 521 * , 1 , ( 1999 ) .
r. e. smith , _ et al .
_ mon .  not .
r.  astron .
soc.*341 * , 1311 ( 2003 ) .
s. hannestad and e. mrtsell , jcap * 0409 * , 001 ( 2004 ) .
y. wang and m. tegmark , phys .
* 92 * , 241302 ( 2004 ) .
u. alam , v. sahni , and a. a. starobinsky , jcap * 0406 * , 008 ( 2004 ) .
t. r. choudhury and t. padmanabhan , astron . astrophys . * 429 * , 807 ( 2005 ) .
d. rapetti , s. w. allen , and j. weller , [ astro - ph/0409574 ] ( 2004 ) .
p. s. corasaniti , _ et . al .
d * 70 * , 083006 ( 2004 ) .
a. makarov ( private communication ) .
a. slosar , u. seljak , and a. makarov , phys .
d , * 69 * , 123003 ( 2004 ) .
u. seljak , _ et al .
_ , [ astro - ph/0406594 ] ( 2004 ) .
y. wang , astrophys .
j. , * 531 * , 676 ( 2000 ) .
y. wang , [ astro - ph/0406635 ] ( 2004 ) .
l. stman and e. mrtsell , [ astro - ph/0410501 ] ( 2004 ) .
i. zlatev , l. wang , and p. j. steinhardt , phys .rev . lett . *
82 * , 896 - 899 ( 1999 ) .
p. brax and j. martin , phys .
b * 468 * , 40 - 45 ( 1999 ) .
a. refregier , ann.rev.astron.astrophys .
* 41 * , 645 ( 2003 ) .
i. maor , _ et al .
_ , phys.rev .
d * 65 * , 123003 ( 2002 ) .
virey , _ et al .
d * 70 * , 121301 ( 2004 ) .
e. v. linder and r. miquel , phys .
d * 70 * , 123516 ( 2004 ) .
m. ishak ( submitted to mon . not .
r. astron . soc . )
[ astro - ph/0501594 ] ( 2005 ) . c. m. hirata and u. seljak , phys .
d * 68 * , 083002 ( 2003 ) .