arXiv subjects

Kellie Ottoboni

Publications and source records attributed to Kellie Ottoboni.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2020

Estimating population average treatment effects from experiments with noncompliance

Randomized control trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating causal effects, but often use samples that are non-representative of the actual population of interest. We propose a reweighting method for estimating population average treatment effects in settings with noncompliance. Simulations show the proposed compliance-adjusted population estimator outperforms its unadjusted counterpart when compliance is relatively low and can be predicted by observed covariates. We apply the method to evaluate the effect of Medicaid coverage on health care use for a target population of adults who may benefit from expansions to the Medicaid program. We draw RCT data from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, where less than one-third of those randomly selected to receive Medicaid benefits actually enrolled.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2018

Bernoulli Ballot Polling: A Manifest Improvement for Risk-Limiting Audits

We present a method and software for ballot-polling risk-limiting audits (RLAs) based on Bernoulli sampling: ballots are included in the sample with probability $p$, independently. Bernoulli sampling has several advantages: (1) it does not require a ballot manifest; (2) it can be conducted independently at different locations, rather than requiring a central authority to select the sample from the whole population of cast ballots or requiring stratified sampling; (3) it can start in polling places on election night, before margins are known. If the reported margins for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election are correct, a Bernoulli ballot-polling audit with a risk limit of 5% and a sampling rate of $p_0 = 1\%$ would have had at least a 99% probability of confirming the outcome in 42 states. (The other states were more likely to have needed to examine additional ballots.) Logistical and security advantages that auditing in the polling place affords may outweigh the cost of examining more ballots than some other methods might require.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2018

Random problems with R

R (Version 3.5.1 patched) has an issue with its random sampling functionality. R generates random integers between $1$ and $m$ by multiplying random floats by $m$, taking the floor, and adding $1$ to the result. Well-known quantization effects in this approach result in a non-uniform distribution on $\{ 1, \ldots, m\}$. The difference, which depends on $m$, can be substantial. Because the sample function in R relies on generating random integers, random sampling in R is biased. There is an easy fix: construct random integers directly from random bits, rather than multiplying a random float by $m$. That is the strategy taken in Python's numpy.random.randint() function, among others. Example source code in Python is available at https://github.com/statlab/cryptorandom/blob/master/cryptorandom/cryptorandom.py (see functions getrandbits() and randbelow_from_randbits()).

cs.MS↗

arXiv2018

Random Sampling: Practice Makes Imperfect

The pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs), sampling algorithms, and algorithms for generating random integers in some common statistical packages and programming languages are unnecessarily inaccurate, by an amount that may matter for statistical inference. Most use PRNGs with state spaces that are too small for contemporary sampling problems and methods such as the bootstrap and permutation tests. The random sampling algorithms in many packages rely on the false assumption that PRNGs produce IID $U[0, 1)$ outputs. The discreteness of PRNG outputs and the limited state space of common PRNGs cause those algorithms to perform poorly in practice. Statistics packages and scientific programming languages should use cryptographically secure PRNGs by default (not for their security properties, but for their statistical ones), and offer weaker PRNGs only as an option. Software should not use methods that assume PRNG outputs are IID $U[0,1)$ random variables, such as generating a random sample by permuting the population and taking the first $k$ items or generating random integers by multiplying a pseudo-random binary fraction or float by a constant and rounding the result. More accurate methods are available.

stat.CO↗

arXiv2018

Risk-Limiting Audits by Stratified Union-Intersection Tests of Elections (SUITE)

Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) offer a statistical guarantee: if a full manual tally of the paper ballots would show that the reported election outcome is wrong, an RLA has a known minimum chance of leading to a full manual tally. RLAs generally rely on random samples. Stratified sampling--partitioning the population of ballots into disjoint strata and sampling independently from the strata--may simplify logistics or increase efficiency compared to simpler sampling designs, but makes risk calculations harder. We present SUITE, a new method for conducting RLAs using stratified samples. SUITE considers all possible partitions of outcome-changing error across strata. For each partition, it combines P-values from stratum-level tests into a combined P-value; there is no restriction on the tests used in different strata. SUITE maximizes the combined P-value over all partitions of outcome-changing error. The audit can stop if that maximum is less than the risk limit. Voting systems in some Colorado counties (comprising 98.2% of voters) allow auditors to check how the system interpreted each ballot, which allows ballot-level comparison RLAs. Other counties use ballot polling, which is less efficient. Extant approaches to conducting an RLA of a statewide contest would require major changes to Colorado's procedures and software, or would sacrifice the efficiency of ballot-level comparison. SUITE does not. It divides ballots into two strata: those cast in counties that can conduct ballot-level comparisons, and the rest. Stratum-level P-values are found by methods derived here. The resulting audit is substantially more efficient than statewide ballot polling. SUITE is useful in any state with a mix of voting systems or that uses stratified sampling for other reasons. We provide an open-source reference implementation and exemplar calculations in Jupyter notebooks.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2018

Next Steps for the Colorado Risk-Limiting Audit (CORLA) Program

Colorado conducted risk-limiting tabulation audits (RLAs) across the state in 2017, including both ballot-level comparison audits and ballot-polling audits. Those audits only covered contests restricted to a single county; methods to efficiently audit contests that cross county boundaries and combine ballot polling and ballot-level comparisons have not been available. Colorado's current audit software (RLATool) needs to be improved to audit these contests that cross county lines and to audit small contests efficiently. This paper addresses these needs. It presents extremely simple but inefficient methods, more efficient methods that combine ballot polling and ballot-level comparisons using stratified samples, and methods that combine ballot-level comparison and variable-size batch comparison audits in a way that does not require stratified sampling. We conclude with some recommendations, and illustrate our recommended method using examples that compare them to existing approaches. Exemplar open-source code and interactive Jupyter notebooks are provided that implement the methods and allow further exploration.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2017

An Empirical Comparison of Parametric and Permutation Tests for Regression Analysis of Randomized Experiments

Hypothesis tests based on linear models are widely accepted by organizations that regulate clinical trials. These tests are derived using strong assumptions about the data-generating process so that the resulting inference can be based on parametric distributions. Because these methods are well understood and robust, they are sometimes applied to data that depart from assumptions, such as ordinal integer scores. Permutation tests are a nonparametric alternative that require minimal assumptions which are often guaranteed by the randomization that was conducted. We compare analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), a special case of linear regression that incorporates stratification, to several permutation tests based on linear models that control for pretreatment covariates. In simulations of randomized experiments using models which violate some of the parametric regression assumptions, the permutation tests maintain power comparable to ANCOVA. We illustrate the use of these permutation tests alongside ANCOVA using data from a clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of two treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Given the considerable costs and scientific importance of clinical trials, an additional nonparametric method, such as a linear model permutation test, may serve as a robustness check on the statistical inference for the main study endpoints.

stat.AP↗