[@Boos:2001cv]; we set PARP(67)=1 and [SCALUP]{}=$m_W$ to have the same maximum scale in the shower as in the standalone generation. In order to facilitate the visual comparisons between  and , the results of the latter are rescaled (by different factors, depending on the observables considered). As has already been discussed at length in the literature, we expect MC@NLO to be identical in shape to the PSMC results in the regions of the phase space dominated by those large logarithms the PSMC is able to resum; this is the motivation for comparing  with  standalone. Also, we expect MC@NLO to coincide, in shape and normalization, with the NLO results in the regions where hard emissions are dominant. Given that it has already been shown in the past that this is the case for , here we compare   directly with , rather than with the pure NLO results, since this will also give us the opportunity to observe the different behaviours of the two underlying PSMCs in the soft/collinear regions. As far as negative weights are concerned, for $W$ production at the LHC their fraction with  is about 0.6%, while in the case of  is about 8%. Since the phase-space parametrizations used in 