it looks to me that some fits produce surprisingly large or small 
error bars which could hide the actual dependence of the double 

In any case, it is interesting to see that

1. (signal/peaking)_DATA/(signal/peaking_MC) signal enhanced look
   more or less flat in the first bins suggesting that one might
   take the MC values at higher mX

2. (signal/peaking)_DATA/(signal/peaking_MC) signal depleted look
   also more or less flat, however, only for larger mX values.
   This would support that one can take the MC values at higher
   mX values from MC. 
   However, I do not understand why it does not work at smaller mX.
3. For comb.BG/peakingBG the results are not conclusive.
   The points around at the D/D* mass spoil somehow the picture.
   Otherwise the double-ratios also show not too large variations.

We need to be sure that all the fits make sense.


On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have updated the web pages with double ratio plots:
> has the double ratio (signal/peaking)_DATA/(signal/peaking_MC) and 
> (peaking/continuum)_DATA/(peaking/continuum)_MC  for depleted sample, 
> just below the corresponding 1D mx plot;
> has the same as above but for the enriched sample;
> has the double ratios for Data_enriched/Data_depleted and 
> MC_enriched/MC_depleted.
> As you can see I decided to plot the double ratios insted of 
> superimposing the two sample with different colors.
> The missing plots are the yields for the 2D scans... I will produce it.
> ciao
> Antonio