Busting the Paper Ballot: Voting Meets Adversarial Machine Learning

June 17, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Conference on Computer and Communications Security

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Kaleel Mahmood, Caleb Manicke, Ethan Rathbun, Aayushi Verma, Sohaib Ahmad, Nicholas Stamatakis, Laurent Michel, Benjamin Fuller arXiv ID 2506.14582 Category cs.CR: Cryptography & Security Cross-listed cs.CV, cs.LG Citations 0 Venue Conference on Computer and Communications Security Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
We show the security risk associated with using machine learning classifiers in United States election tabulators. The central classification task in election tabulation is deciding whether a mark does or does not appear on a bubble associated to an alternative in a contest on the ballot. Barretto et al. (E-Vote-ID 2021) reported that convolutional neural networks are a viable option in this field, as they outperform simple feature-based classifiers. Our contributions to election security can be divided into four parts. To demonstrate and analyze the hypothetical vulnerability of machine learning models on election tabulators, we first introduce four new ballot datasets. Second, we train and test a variety of different models on our new datasets. These models include support vector machines, convolutional neural networks (a basic CNN, VGG and ResNet), and vision transformers (Twins and CaiT). Third, using our new datasets and trained models, we demonstrate that traditional white box attacks are ineffective in the voting domain due to gradient masking. Our analyses further reveal that gradient masking is a product of numerical instability. We use a modified difference of logits ratio loss to overcome this issue (Croce and Hein, ICML 2020). Fourth, in the physical world, we conduct attacks with the adversarial examples generated using our new methods. In traditional adversarial machine learning, a high (50% or greater) attack success rate is ideal. However, for certain elections, even a 5% attack success rate can flip the outcome of a race. We show such an impact is possible in the physical domain. We thoroughly discuss attack realism, and the challenges and practicality associated with printing and scanning ballot adversarial examples.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Cryptography & Security

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted