Source author record

Lihi Dery

Lihi Dery appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Cryptography and Security cs.CY Human-Computer Interaction

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Fear Not, Vote Truthfully: Secure Multiparty Computation of Score Based Rules

We propose a secure voting protocol for score-based voting rules, where independent talliers perform the tallying procedure. The protocol outputs the winning candidate(s) while preserving the privacy of the voters and the secrecy of the ballots. It offers perfect secrecy, in the sense that apart from the desired output, all other information -- the ballots, intermediate values, and the final scores received by each of the candidates -- is not disclosed to any party, including the talliers. Such perfect secrecy may increase the voters' confidence and, consequently, encourage them to vote according to their true preferences. The protocol is extremely lightweight, and therefore it can be easily deployed in real-life voting scenarios.

preprint2021arXiv

Reaching Consensus Under a Deadline

Committee decisions are complicated by a deadline, e.g., the next start of a budget, or the beginning of a semester. In committee hiring decisions, it may be that if no candidate is supported by a strong majority, the default is to hire no one - an option that may cost dearly. As a result, committee members might prefer to agree on a reasonable, if not necessarily the best, candidate, to avoid unfilled positions. In this paper, we propose a model for the above scenario - Consensus Under a Deadline (CUD)- based on a time-bounded iterative voting process. We provide convergence guarantees and an analysis of the quality of the final decision. An extensive experimental study demonstrates more subtle features of CUDs, e.g., the difference between two simple types of committee member behavior, lazy vs.~proactive voters. Finally, a user study examines the differences between the behavior of rational voting bots and real voters, concluding that it may often be best to have bots play on the voters' behalf.