Showing 1–5 of 5 results for author: Vora, P

PROVIDENCE: a Flexible Round-by-Round Risk-Limiting Audit

Authors: Oliver Broadrick, Poorvi L. Vora, Filip Zagórski

Abstract: A Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) is a statistical election tabulation audit with a rigorous error guarantee. We present ballot polling RLA PROVIDENCE, an audit with the efficiency of MINERVA and flexibility of BRAVO. We prove that PROVIDENCE is risk-limiting in the presence of an adversary who can choose subsequent round sizes given knowledge of previous samples. We describe a measure of audit workload… ▽ More A Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) is a statistical election tabulation audit with a rigorous error guarantee. We present ballot polling RLA PROVIDENCE, an audit with the efficiency of MINERVA and flexibility of BRAVO. We prove that PROVIDENCE is risk-limiting in the presence of an adversary who can choose subsequent round sizes given knowledge of previous samples. We describe a measure of audit workload as a function of the number of rounds, precincts touched, and ballots drawn.We quantify the problem of obtaining a misleading audit sample when rounds are too small, demonstrating the importance of the resulting constraint on audit planning. We present simulation results demonstrating the superiority of PROVIDENCE using these measures and describing an approach to planning audit round schedules. We describe the use of PROVIDENCE by the Rhode Island Board of Elections in a tabulation audit of the 2021 election. Our implementation of PROVIDENCE and audit planning tools in the open source R2B2 library should be useful to the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania, which are planning pre-certification ballot polling RLAs for the 2022 general election. △ Less

Submitted 16 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

The ATHENA Class of Risk-Limiting Ballot Polling Audits

Authors: Filip Zagórski, Grant McClearn, Sarah Morin, Neal McBurnett, Poorvi L. Vora

Abstract: 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)… ▽ More 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 stop** 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 stop** 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 $90\%$ stop** probability, when compared to BRAVO (stop** rule applied at the end of the round). We present simulation results supporting the 90% stop** 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 stop** rule applied on ballots in selection order. This implies that kee** 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 kee** track of the order, and entering it into audit software, adds to the effort. △ Less

Submitted 21 February, 2021; v1 submitted 5 August, 2020; originally announced August 2020.

Risk-Limiting Bayesian Polling Audits for Two Candidate Elections

Authors: Poorvi L. Vora

Abstract: We propose a simple common framework for Risk-Limiting and Bayesian (polling) audits for two-candidate plurality elections. Using it, we derive an expression for the general Bayesian audit; in particular, we do not restrict the prior to a beta distribution. We observe that the decision rule for the Bayesian audit is a simple comparison test, which enables the use of pre-computation---without simul… ▽ More We propose a simple common framework for Risk-Limiting and Bayesian (polling) audits for two-candidate plurality elections. Using it, we derive an expression for the general Bayesian audit; in particular, we do not restrict the prior to a beta distribution. We observe that the decision rule for the Bayesian audit is a simple comparison test, which enables the use of pre-computation---without simulations---and greatly increases the computational efficiency of the audit. Our main contribution is a general form for an audit that is both Bayesian and risk-limiting: the {\em Bayesian Risk-Limiting Audit}, which enables the use of a Bayesian approach to explore more efficient Risk-Limiting Audits. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2019; v1 submitted 3 February, 2019; originally announced February 2019.

Public Evidence from Secret Ballots

Authors: Matthew Bernhard, Josh Benaloh, J. Alex Halderman, Ronald L. Rivest, Peter Y. A. Ryan, Philip B. Stark, Vanessa Teague, Poorvi L. Vora, Dan S. Wallach

Abstract: Elections seem simple---aren't they just counting? But they have a unique, challenging combination of security and privacy requirements. The stakes are high; the context is adversarial; the electorate needs to be convinced that the results are correct; and the secrecy of the ballot must be ensured. And they have practical constraints: time is of the essence, and voting systems need to be affordabl… ▽ More Elections seem simple---aren't they just counting? But they have a unique, challenging combination of security and privacy requirements. The stakes are high; the context is adversarial; the electorate needs to be convinced that the results are correct; and the secrecy of the ballot must be ensured. And they have practical constraints: time is of the essence, and voting systems need to be affordable and maintainable, and usable by voters, election officials, and pollworkers. It is thus not surprising that voting is a rich research area spanning theory, applied cryptography, practical systems analysis, usable security, and statistics. Election integrity involves two key concepts: convincing evidence that outcomes are correct and privacy, which amounts to convincing assurance that there is no evidence about how any given person voted. These are obviously in tension. We examine how current systems walk this tightrope. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2017; v1 submitted 26 July, 2017; originally announced July 2017.

Comments: To appear in E-Vote-Id '17

End-to-end verifiability

Authors: Josh Benaloh, Ronald Rivest, Peter Y. A. Ryan, Philip Stark, Vanessa Teague, Poorvi Vora

Abstract: This pamphlet describes end-to-end election verifiability (E2E-V) for a nontechnical audience: election officials, public policymakers, and anyone else interested in secure, transparent, evidence-based electronic elections. This work is part of the Overseas Vote Foundation's End-to-End Verifiable Internet Voting: Specification and Feasibility Assessment Study (E2E VIV Project), funded by the Dem… ▽ More This pamphlet describes end-to-end election verifiability (E2E-V) for a nontechnical audience: election officials, public policymakers, and anyone else interested in secure, transparent, evidence-based electronic elections. This work is part of the Overseas Vote Foundation's End-to-End Verifiable Internet Voting: Specification and Feasibility Assessment Study (E2E VIV Project), funded by the Democracy Fund. △ Less

Submitted 14 April, 2015; originally announced April 2015.