R. Keith Ellis ( keith.ellis@durham.ac.uk )
W. James Stirling ( deceased )
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 3-loop coefficient is distinguishable from the curve with the 2-loop 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 (e-Print
Archive: hep-ph/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.(3.12-3.15) | 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(E-E') | Mrinal Dasgupta |
| 91 | midpage | "Note that in the QCD-improved parton model F_L is only non-zero at leading order in perturbation theory", should read "Note that in the QCD-improved parton model F_L is only non-zero 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 2-vector 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.(4.109-4.112) satisfy Eqs.(4.116,4.117), after including the endpoint contributions as described in Eqs.(4.118-4.120). 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 upper-right (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 |
| 169 | Eq.(5.40) | The second "dz" (inside the square bracket) should not appear | Rok Medves |
| 180 | Eq.(5.79) | The term on the right-hand 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 right-hand sides of both equations should be multiplied by 2. The expression for p_T^2 is in fact only a small-angle 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 | dot-dashed should read long-dashed | 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 |
| 277 | Fig.(8.2) | The Feynman rule for the triple gauge boson vertex should have a minus sign, not plus (remember that an incoming W^+ corresponds to an outgoing W^- and vice versa). The corrected page is here. | Andrew Lifson |
| We add here the Feynman rules for the bosonic interactions of the Higgs boson. | |||
| 279 | below Eq.(8.45) | The identity should read \tau_2 \tau_j^* \tau_2 = - \tau_j (minus missing). | |
| 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 right-hand side should be divided by s. | John Campbell |
| 296 | Eqs.(8.114-120) | With the correction to p.277, the discussion here is correct but not transparent. A clearer exposition is given here. | |
| 307 | Eq.(9.19) | The factor of alpha_s/2pi in the second term on the right-hand 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 left-hand side of Eq. (9.42) implies a colour average, the right-hand 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 2016 Review of Particle Physics is M_H=125.09+/-0.21+\-0.11 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 2016 value given there, replacing that in Eq. (12.25), is alpha_s(M_Z^2) = 0.1181 +/- 0.0011. |