Type B

• General comment: Well written concise and clear. Minor revision suggested as indicated below.

• Line 15: "[5]" --> "defined in [5]" or "introduced in [5]". It is unclear, otherwise, whether [5] refers to the 'improved W/Z tagger based on ...' or to the definition of 'N-subjettiness variables' (which is the case).
• Line 16: "benchmark processes". The word "benchmark" is usually meant to indicate a reference used to evaluate the performance of something. In a search for new phenomena, it may give the impression that you are not reporting on a few viable BSM models that you have tested, but rather on your ability to design an analysis. We would say "reference processes", or simply "processes".
• Line 43: "axial". The is no clue in the detector description to help the reader identify an axial symmetry.
• Line 61: "A factor five smaller than ...". Is this true for any value of the two-jet invariant mass, or for the range relevant for this analysis?
• Line 90: "... difference in response between the measured and true energies of hadrons". This sentence does not sound correct. The detector response to the true energy is the measured energy, but there not a 'response to a measured energy'. Perhaps 'difference between the measured and true energies of hadrons due to the detector response' is better. Or you may even simply drop 'in response' from the sentence.
• Line 96-97: As the calorimeter noise deserved a specific mention, we guess it is a rather prominent background in the analysis. Thus the question is: how efficient is the rejection? You say 'reduce', but you do not say at which level you are still contaminated. If, otherwise, the contamination at the end is negligible (and it has no impact on the efficiency as we learn from the next sentence, why mention this 'technical' selection explicitly in a paper? Can't you simply say, where you describe reconstruction, that calorimeter noise is filtered.
• Line 101: "including W/Z-tagging". Yet the W/Z-tagging has not been described. Perhaps you may add a forward reference to the next paragraph? (Swapping the paragraphs might also do the job, but it would cause some complication in arranging the sequence of the figures, which is good as is).
• Line 123: The mass of a jet is introduced without definition.

Type A

• General 1: According to CMS PubCom rules, either British or American English could be used, but not an admixture of them. Line 7 uses "center" (American); line 29 uses "favours" (British). Please make a choice.
• General 2: The use of "s" instead of "z" in several words (for example "characterised" on Line 9, ...) is becoming a popular trend, but it is incorrect according to grammar. Also you are using a mixture of "s" and "z" (on line 144 you have "polarization" just after "polarisation" in the previous line). We have spotted several cases with an "s", as listed in the line-by-line comments below, but you should better check the full text.

• Line 9: "characterised" --> "characterized" (the use of "s" is a popular trend, but incorrect according to grammar)
• "Line 12:* The concept of W/Z-tagging has not been introduced or explained. It is only implicitly alluded to in the sentence. For these reasons we suggest to put the word between quotes ("W/Z-tagging") here, where it appears for the first time in the paper.
• Line 14: "sqrt(s)" --> "centre-of-mass". Math expression should be used only in formulae
• *Line 64:" m_jj is written with different characters than at Line 76. Please check.
• Line 141: check text justification
• Line 143: "polarisation" --> "polarization" see comment above (btw in the next line, you have the correct spelling)
• Line 148: Say "we select HP by ... and LP by ..." Or split the sentence in two if, for some stylistic reason, you wish to keep the inverted order you have now. The current sentence is an anacoluthon in its most classical form (in fact you do not "select 0.5<tau12<0.75", but you "select LP"
• *Line 182:" "optimised" --> "optimized"
• *Line 174:" "Search" --> "search"
• Line 183: "normalisation" --> "normalization"
• Line 191: "normalised" --> "normalized"
• Line 196: "maximising" --> "maximizing"
• References: Ref [4], [12], [13], [19], [22], [26] and [51] "Collaboration Collaboration" --> fix bibtex file

-- TommasoTabarelliDeFatis - 17 Feb 2014