arXiv subjects

Neal McBurnett

Publications and source records attributed to Neal McBurnett.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2021

The ATHENA Class of Risk-Limiting Ballot Polling Audits

The main risk-limiting ballot polling audit in use today, BRAVO, is designed for use when single ballots are drawn at random and a decision regarding whether to stop the audit or draw another ballot is taken after each ballot draw (ballot-by-ballot (B2) audits). On the other hand, real ballot polling audits draw many ballots in a single round before determining whether to stop (round-by-round (R2) audits). We show that BRAVO results in significant inefficiency when directly applied to real R2 audits. We present the ATHENA class of R2 stopping rules, which we show are risk-limiting if the round schedule is pre-determined (before the audit begins). We prove that each rule is at least as efficient as the corresponding BRAVO stopping rule applied at the end of the round. We have open-source software libraries implementing most of our results. We show that ATHENA halves the number of ballots required, for all state margins in the 2016 US Presidential election and a first round with $90\%$ stopping probability, when compared to BRAVO (stopping rule applied at the end of the round). We present simulation results supporting the 90% stopping probability claims and our claims for the risk accrued in the first round. Further, ATHENA reduces the number of ballots by more than a quarter for low margins, when compared to the BRAVO stopping rule applied on ballots in selection order. This implies that keeping track of the order when drawing ballots R2 is not beneficial, because ATHENA is more efficient even without information on selection order. These results are significant because current approaches to real ballot polling election audits use the B2 BRAVO rules, requiring about twice as much work on the part of election officials. Applying the rules in selection order requires fewer ballots, but keeping track of the order, and entering it into audit software, adds to the effort.

cs.CR↗

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↗

arXiv2012

STAR-Vote: A Secure, Transparent, Auditable, and Reliable Voting System

In her 2011 EVT/WOTE keynote, Travis County, Texas County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir described the qualities she wanted in her ideal election system to replace their existing DREs. In response, in April of 2012, the authors, working with DeBeauvoir and her staff, jointly architected STAR-Vote, a voting system with a DRE-style human interface and a "belt and suspenders" approach to verifiability. It provides both a paper trail and end-to-end cryptography using COTS hardware. It is designed to support both ballot-level risk-limiting audits, and auditing by individual voters and observers. The human interface and process flow is based on modern usability research. This paper describes the STAR-Vote architecture, which could well be the next-generation voting system for Travis County and perhaps elsewhere.

cs.CR↗