General Comments on the paper layout and Style

Comments on the analysis/methodology

• It won't significantly change the result, but why use powheg+pythia for ttbar together with MC@NLO for single top? It would make more sense to either use MC@NLO for both processes (since there is interference between the two) or else to use AcerMC for single-top, as it is consdiered to describe the %$ P_T$% spectrum for additional b-jets better than MC@NLO.

Specific comments on the text

Abstract

line 5: "up to 5 jets" seems to imply that the measurement is in bins of n excusive jets, however in fact the measurement if in bins of n inclusive jets. Obviously "up to 5 or more jets" doesn't work, but there must be a better way to write this.

Data and Online Event Selection

line 101: "On the average" -> "On average"

line 110 and 116: here you separately use "on-line" and "offline" , in section titles you use "online" and "off-line"; be consistent!

Off-line Event Analysis

Jet Selection

line 271: use \mbox to prevent wrap around of the inequality for JVF

Missing Tranverse Energy and %$ M_T $%

line 300: if the reader looks at reference [39] they will find extensive discussion of calcualtion and performance for "missing transverse momentum", not "missing transverse energy"

line 301: use \mbox to prevent wrap-around of the %$ M_T $% formula

References

reference [18] is not the appropriate one for single top production with MC@NLO - you should use, in addition:

S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, Single-top production in MC@NLO. J. High Energy Phys. 03, 092 (2006)

and

S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B.R. Webber, C.D. White, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a W boson. J. High Energy Phys. 07, 029 (2008)