Correction to: R. Krimmer et al. (Eds.): Electronic Voting, LNCS 12455, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60347-2

The original version of the cover and book was revised. The seventh editor name has been updated.

The original version of this chapter “A Unified Evaluation of Two-Candidate Ballot-Polling Election Auditing Methods” contains the following errors which have been now corrected:

Page 117:

  • “It can be continuous, discrete, or neither.” should read “It can be continuous, discrete, or a combination of the two.”

Page 118:

  • “...is risk-maximizing: for such a prior, limiting the upset probability to \(\alpha \) also limits the risk to \(\alpha \).” should read “...is risk-maximizing. For such a prior, limiting the upset probability to \(\upsilon \) also limits the risk: for the specific type of Bayesian audits considered by Vora [11], the risk limit is \(\upsilon \); however, for the Bayesian audits described here (see below), the risk limit is \( \frac{\upsilon }{1 - \upsilon } > \upsilon \).”

  • “The upset probability, \(\Pr (H_0 \mid Y_n)\), is not the risk, which we write informally as \(\max _{H_0} \Pr (\text {certify} \mid H_0)\).” should read “ The upset probability, \(\Pr (H_0 \mid Y_n)\), is not the risk, which is \( \Pr (\text {certify} \parallel p_T)\).”

  • “For risk-maximizing priors, taking \(h = \frac{1 - \alpha }{\alpha }\) yields an audit with risk limit \(\alpha \).” should read “For risk-maximizing priors, taking \(h = \frac{1 }{\alpha }\) (which is equivalent to a threshold of \(\upsilon = \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} \) on the upset probability) yields an audit with risk limit \(\alpha \).”

Page 119:

  • “\( \Pr (Y_n \mid p_1) \)” should read “\( \Pr (Y_n \parallel p_1) \)” (3 instances).

  • “\( \Pr (Y_n \mid p_0) \)” should read “\( \Pr (Y_n \parallel p_0) \)” (1 instances).