R. Keith Ellis ( ellis@fnal.gov )
W. James Stirling ( w.j.stirling@imperial.ac.uk )
Bryan R. Webber ( webber@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk )
Updates and corrections
Page  Eqn. or Figure Number  Correction  Thanks to: 
3  4th line, last paragraph  such muons > such as muons  
14  Eq.(1.48)
Eq.(1.50) 
+m should read m_j,
+M should read M. (The correct form is given in Eq. (1.9)) 
Stefano Catani 
25  Fig.(2.2)  The statement describing Fig.(2.2) is not literally correct. The curve including the 3loop coefficient is distinguishable from the curve with the 2loop coefficient. For an updated figure see Fig 2.2_updated  Richard Ball 
33  Eqs.(2.40)
and (2.41) 
Eq. (9) of the paper Nucl.Phys.B438:278,1995 (ePrint
Archive: hepph/9411260) by S.A. Larin,T. van Ritbergen and J.A.M.
Vermaseren corrects the paper by W. Bernreuther and W. Wetzel, Nucl.Phys.B197:228,1982,
as confirmed by the erratum Nucl.Phys.B513:758(1998).
Our Eq. (2.40) should read C_2(x)=\frac{1}{72 \pi^2} (2 x^2 +33 x 11) and hence our Eq. (2.41) becomes \alpha_{+}(m_q^2) = \alpha_{}(m_q^2) \frac{11}{72\pi^2}[\alpha_{}(m_q^2)]^3 The difference between \alpha_{+} and \alpha_{} remains small. 

41  Eq.(2.69)  The first integration should be from x to y, not from z to y  Gavin Salam 
55  Eq.(3.2)  In the definition of kappa, the 16 pi alpha should be 4 pi alpha. Note that 1 >> chi_1 >> chi_2, (rather than 1 >> chi_1 >> chi_2 as stated in text between Eqs.(3.3) and (3.4)).  Thomas Hadig 
56  Eq.(3.10)  The RHS of Eq.(3.10) should be divided by 4 (ie the numerical factor is 6 not 24)  Mike Seymour 
57,58  Eqs.(3.123.15)  These equations contain errors, although the final result Eq.(3.16)
is correct,
For the corrected equations see replacement text 
Carlo Ewerz
Ugo Aglietti 
78  Eq.(3.52)
Eq.(3.53) 
The subscripts 2 and 3 should be interchanged; .
The denominator should be p_1 x p_2.p_3 x p_4. In the last sentence in Sec 3.5 former should read latter. 
Mark Smith
Thomas Hadig 
87  Eq.(4.1)  nu should be M(EE')  Mrinal Dasgupta 
91  midpage  "Note that in the QCDimproved parton model F_L is only nonzero at leading order in perturbation theory", should read "Note that in the QCDimproved parton model F_L is only nonzero beyond leading order in perturbation theory."  Thomas Hadig 
91  Eq.(4.19)  There is a factor of x missing in the third term. F3(x,Q^2) should read x F3(x,Q^2)  
91  Eq.(4.21)  There is a factor of the ratio of the Z coupling to the photon coupling missing in the last line of Eqn. (4.21). The corrected version is given here  Thomas Hadig 
95  Eq.(4.29)  The term involving W_1 should have an overall minus sign  Mrinal Dasgupta 
95,100,101  The notation for the square of vectors in the transverse plane is confusing. q_T^2, k_T^2 and q_T.k_T should be interpreted as 2vector products, i.e. q_T^2 = q_T^\mu q_{T \mu} > 0, etc.  Thomas Hadig  
106  Fig.4.8c,d  Figures 4.8 c and d have incorrect arrows on fermion lines, For an updated figure see Fig 4.8_updated  Thomas Hadig 
107  4th line, last paragraph  been so far been > been so far  Thomas Hadig 
112  Eq.(4.110,4.116,4.117)  Unfortunately we have used a mixed notation in describing the singlet NLO branching of a gluon into a quark. This leads to some confusion in the placement of factors of 2 n_f. Eqs.(4.1094.112) satisfy Eqs.(4.116,4.117), after including the endpoint contributions as described in Eqs.(4.1184.120). However the notation established in Eq.(4.92) suggests that they should satisfy an equation like the leading order momentum conservation relation, Eq.(4.93).  
114  Eq.(4.122)  The third equation for P_{gq} is
missing a factor of 9 in the denominator of
the second term
The correct formulae are given in Zeit. Phys. C27,Page 623, Eq. (30). 
Richard Ball 
115  Fig.(4.9)  The upperright (qg) plot includes the factor of 2n_f (with n_f=4) that is shown explicitly in Eq.(4.128).  Peter Landshoff 
136  Eqs. at foot of page  The first bullet should read (n=0;m=0) + P^{(0)} : LO  Thomas Hadig 
145  Eqs.(4.216,4.218)  The factor of u in the numerator of the integrand should be replaced by du  
155  Ref. 34  Phys. Rev. 10 should read Phys. Rev. D10  Carlo Ewerz 
161  Eq.(5.11)  The = sign on the second line should be proportional to  Dave Soper 
162  Eq.(5.15)  A factor of g is missing from the middle and right hand side.  
162,163  Tables 5.2,5.3  These tables show the values of 2F, not F  Dave Soper 
Eqs.(5.16,5.19)  The factor of 4 should be replaced by 2  Dave Soper  
164  Eqs.(5.26,5.28)  In the case g > gg, we define the n+1 particle cross section to include an identical particle factor 1/2. With this factor, the equations are correct as printed.  Dave Soper 
180  Eq.(5.79)  The term on the righthand side of the equal sign has the wrong sign  
181  Eq.(5.88)  It should have been mentioned that the first approximation in (5.90) has already been applied  Junya Nakamura 
184  Eq.(5.100)  The righthand sides of both equations should be multiplied by 2. The expression for p_T^2 is in fact only a smallangle approximation. Eq.(5.101) is still valid as it only aims to keep the leading soft and/or collinear singularities, so constant factors can be neglected.  Junya Nakamura 
202  Eq.(6.26)
Eq.(6.27) 
The lower limit of integration should be
0,
not x .
There should be a tilde over the D 
Mrinal Dasgupta 
210  5th line  dotdashed should read longdashed  Thomas Hadig 
215  Eq.(6.57)  The 3/4 should be 3/2, and the last two occurrences of phi_q should be phi_g  Mark Smith 
215  Eq.(6.61)  The first occurrence of phi_q should again be phi_g, and the two occurrences of Delta_q should be Delta_g  Mike Seymour 
225  Eq.(6.91)  s should read tau s  Mike Seymour 
234  Ref.(29)  The page number of the second paper should be 323, not 353  
245  Fig.(7.4)  The qq luminosity shown is for identical flavours, i.e. (u*u+d*d+s*s+c*c+ubar*ubar+dbar*dbar+sbar*sbar+cbar*cbar). A plot for (q+qbar)*(q+qbar), including all flavour combinations, may be found here.  Michael Peskin 
253  Eq.(7.33)  The factor of tau_J multiplying the parton luminosity should be removed.  Howie Haber 
260  2nd line  amplitudes should read cross sections  Timothy Thomas 
280  Eq.(8.53)  contains a typo ig_W \cdot T \slash{W} should read ig_W T \cdot \slash{W}  
284  Eq.(8.67)  q_f should read Q_f  
294  Eq.(8.108)  The righthand side should be divided by s.  John Campbell 
307  Eq.(9.19)  The factor of alpha_s/2pi in the second term on the righthand side should be omitted, as it appears explicitly in Eq.(9.20).  Marco Bonvini 
317  Eq.(9.42)  Assuming the bar over the sum on the lefthand side of Eq. (9.42) implies a colour average, the righthand side should be divided by 3.  
322  Eq.(9.53)  pi should read 4 pi (both equations).  
351  Eqs.(10.59,10.60)  The short distance cross section is a function not of s but of s_hat, defined in Eq. (10.48)  Florent Fayette 
389  Eq.(11.1)  The LEP Higgs mass limit given is out of date. The October 2005 LEP limit was M_H > 114.4 GeV (95% c.l.). See the page of the LEP Higgs Working Group for details. The mass listed in the 2013 Review of Particle Physics is M_H=125.9+/0.4 GeV  
391  Eq.(11.9)  The factor of M_W^2/M_Z^2 in the Higgs > ZZ partial width should be deleted, i.e., the ZZ width should be one half of the WW width with M_W replaced by M_Z.  Stefano Forte 
397  Eq.(11.19)  4 should read 16. The expansion of I(x) in inverse powers of x is 1 + 7/(120 x) + 1/(168 x^2) + ...  
400  Eq.(11.22)  C_1^W = 0, C_2^W = 1 should read C_1^W = 1, C_2^W = 0.  Peter Williams 
424  Eq.(12.25)  The Review of Particle Physics updates measurements of the strong coupling constant, and other topics in quantum chromodynamics, regularly. The September 2005 value given there, replacing that in Eq. (12.25), is alpha_s(M_Z^2) = 0.1176 +/ 0.002. 