By default, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NEUT</span>]{}events are generated with the non-relativistic RPA model.[]{data-label="fig:RPA_types_ratio_NEUT"}](figures/ANU_2D-RPA_types_ratio.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}

With these different ingredients, three distinct candidate CCQE models are available in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NEUT</span>]{}, which are all considered in this work:

1.  RFG+relativistic RPA+2p2h

2.  RFG+non-relativistic RPA+2p2h

3.  SF+2p2h.

The default values for all variable model parameters are listed in Table \[tab:RFG\_params\] and Table \[tab:SF\_params\] for both RFG+RPA+2p2h models and SF+2p2h, respectively.

It should be noted that there are deficiencies for both models as currently implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NEUT</span>]{}. The RFG+RPA+2p2h model is very like the full Nieves model as both the RPA and 2p2h calculations are taken from it. However, the Nieves model consistently uses a [*local*]{} Fermi gas, whereas [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NEUT</span>]{}uses a [*global*]{} Fermi gas model for the 1p1h calculation. Currently there is no ability to vary the value of [$M_{\textrm{A}}$]{}used in the Nieves model prediction as implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NEUT</span>]{}, making the fits slightly inconsistent in this regard[^2]. The SF+2p2h model has no RPA correction applied, which is physically inconsistent as the 2p2h enhancement is used (both corrections are due to complications in heavy nuclear targets). As previously noted, no RPA calculation appropriate for a SF model is currently available, so this inconsistency is unavoidable. 