Comments Rainer Mankel

Type B:

- General: the description of the physics background is very laconic and should be improved. In particular, it would help considerably to show Feynman diagrams of all relevant processes (at least for the signal), including SM processes with and without Higgs boson, the BSM and the DM processes.

- Title: "Search for standard model production": what is the point of this search if we already assume the SM? Besides, there is also BSM searched which this title does not cover. Better: "Search for production of four top quarks in final states..."

- Abstract: in the middle part the abstracts appears too verbose. Reduce the level of detail.

- Abstract bottom: "Upper bounds are also set on couplings of the top quark to lighter particles"

- L 19: "Each top quark decays to a b quark and a W boson": not strictly correct since V_tb is not exactly one.

- L 65: explain also alpha

- Table 1: How can one CR be enough to validate/fix these many backgrounds?

- L 220f: How reliable are these normalizations?

- L 255: "Even with the larger correction factors": what does the correction factor tell us?

- L 261f: How can a simulated sample be "affected" by an uncertainty?

- L 280: What does this variation of the reweighting factors tell us? You should at least explain.

- L 285: Why is that scale factor representative / applicable for ttH?

- L 344: why say "approximately" when you explicitly give the uncertainty?

- L 356: "and 2.7...": why is the improvement obtained with the BDT so small in the expected limit?

- L 368: the "oblique parameter" should be better motivated. In general, the physics background of the study should be strengthened, see also general comment.

- Fig. 3: Why are these yields so different (cut-based vs BDT)?

- L 396: Remind people here what this limit means

- L 399: "off-shell effect" is a bit vague

- L 408: "1.2": relative to what?

- L 411: "on-shell effect" is a bit vague

- L 427: is this really the hMSSM, which is a MSSM scenario with the beyond-tree-level parameters set in a particular way, or does the "inspiration" just motivate you to set the H and A masses equal (which is the case for many other MSSM scenarios, at least approximately)

- Fig. 5: Why do the limits in the 30-300 GeV range not improve with mass, as one might expect from the decreasing virtuality?

- Fig. 6-7: Would be good to specify the value of sin(alpha-beta), or "alignment limit", also on the plots

- L 437: See remarks to title

- L 437: "studied" -> "searched for"

- L 457: "between 15 and 35...": depending on what?





Type A:

- Abstract bottom: "with exclusions reaching" -> "with exclusions limits reaching" 

- L 2: complicated sentence. Better: "In the SM, the production of ... is predicted to be a rare process with a cross section..."

- L 59: mass range of...

- L 170: For the purpose

- L 177: events are selected during data-taking...

- L 185: Nb >= 2: does this not imply Njets >= 2?

- L 187: Drell-Yan production

- L 193f: "depending on the two analysis strategies" -> "according to the respective analysis strategy"

- L 280: "data sample" is jargon -> "data set"

- L 364: as well as production of BSM particles

 - L 411: avoid "now". 

- L 424: "exclusions similar to the 2HDM ones" -> "exclusions similar to those from 2HDM" 

- 439f: "The final state with either two ..."