Doing More With Less: Mismatch-Based Risk-Limiting Audits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16104v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:47:54 GMT
• Title: Doing More With Less: Mismatch-Based Risk-Limiting Audits
• Authors: Alexander Ek, Michelle Blom, Philip B. Stark, Peter J. Stuckey, Vanessa J. Teague, Damjan Vukcevic,
• Abstract summary: One approach to risk-limiting audits (RLAs) compares randomly selected cast vote records (CVRs) to votes read by human auditors.<n>We investigate whether the total number of mismatches in the full set of CVRs exceeds the minimum number of CVR errors required for the reported outcome to be wrong.
• Score: 52.25213882366808
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: One approach to risk-limiting audits (RLAs) compares randomly selected cast vote records (CVRs) to votes read by human auditors from the corresponding ballot cards. Historically, such methods reduce audit sample sizes by considering how each sampled CVR differs from the corresponding true vote, not merely whether they differ. Here we investigate the latter approach, auditing by testing whether the total number of mismatches in the full set of CVRs exceeds the minimum number of CVR errors required for the reported outcome to be wrong (the "CVR margin"). This strategy makes it possible to audit more social choice functions and simplifies RLAs conceptually, which makes it easier to explain than some other RLA approaches. The cost is larger sample sizes. "Mismatch-based RLAs" only require a lower bound on the CVR margin, which for some social choice functions is easier to calculate than the effect of particular errors. When the population rate of mismatches is low and the lower bound on the CVR margin is close to the true CVR margin, the increase in sample size is small. However, the increase may be very large when errors include errors that, if corrected, would widen the CVR margin rather than narrow it; errors affect the margin between candidates other than the reported winner with the fewest votes and the reported loser with the most votes; or errors that affect different margins.

Related papers

• ChorusCVR: Chorus Supervision for Entire Space Post-Click Conversion Rate Modeling [31.709370437858322]
  Post-click conversion rate estimation is a vital task in recommender systems of revenue businesses.<n>For lack of post-event labels for un-clicked samples, CVR learning task commonly only utilizes clicked samples.<n>We propose a novel ChorusCVR model to realize debiased CVR learning in entire-space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T10:31:45Z)
• Efficient Lower Bounding of Single Transferable Vote Election Margins [56.12949230611067]
  Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential proportional voting employed in multi-seat elections. The margin of victory, or simply'margin', is the smallest number of ballots that need to be manipulated to alter the set of winners. Lower bounds on the margin can also be used for this purpose, in cases where exact margins are difficult to compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:39:23Z)
• Efficient Weighting Schemes for Auditing Instant-Runoff Voting Elections [57.67176250198289]
  AWAIRE involves adaptively weighted averages of test statistics, essentially "learning" an effective set of hypotheses to test. We explore schemes and settings more extensively, to identify and recommend efficient choices for practice. A limitation of the current AWAIRE implementation is its restriction to a small number of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T10:13:01Z)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)
• New Bounds on the Accuracy of Majority Voting for Multi-Class Classification [5.95012663623095]
  The accuracy of the MVF for the general multi-class classification problem has remained unknown. We show that under certain conditions, the error rate of the MVF exponentially decays toward zero as the number of independent voters increases. We then provide a discussion on the accuracy of the truth discovery algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:16:41Z)
• Adaptively Weighted Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections: AWAIRE [61.872917066847855]
  Methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system's electronic record of the votes on each ballot. We develop an RLA method that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T15:55:34Z)
• Auditing Ranked Voting Elections with Dirichlet-Tree Models: First Steps [23.14629947453497]
  Ranked voting systems are used in many places around the world. There is no known risk-limiting audit (RLA) method for STV other than a full hand count. We present a new approach to auditing ranked systems that uses a statistical model, a Dirichlet-tree, that can cope with high-dimensional parameters in a computationally efficient manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-29T13:06:42Z)
• Uniformity in Heterogeneity:Diving Deep into Count Interval Partition for Crowd Counting [56.44300325295678]
  We propose a novel count interval partition criterion called Uniform Error Partition (UEP) MCP criterion selects the best count proxy for each interval to represent its count value during inference. We propose a simple yet effective model termed Uniform Error Partition Network (UEPNet)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-27T06:24:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.