Worst-Case Jamming on MIMO Gaussian Channels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worst-case jamming of legitimate communications over multiple-input multiple-output Gaussian channels is studied in this paper. A worst-case scenario with a `smart' jammer that knows all channels and the transmitter's strategy and is only power limited is considered. It is shown that the simplification of the system model by neglecting the properties of the jamming channel leads to a loss of important insights regarding the effects of the jamming power and jamming channel on optimal jamming strategies of the jammer. Without neglecting the jamming channel, a lower-bound on the rate of legitimate communication subject to jamming is derived, and conditions for this bound to be positive are given. The lower-bound rate can be achieved regardless of the quality of the jamming channel, the power limit of the jammer, and the transmit strategy of the jammer. Moreover, general forms of an optimal jamming strategy, on the basis of which insights into the effect of jamming power and jamming channel are exposed, are given. It is shown that the general forms can lead to closed-form optimal jamming solutions when the power limit of the jammer is larger than a threshold. Subsequently, the scenario in which the effect of jamming dominates the effect of noise (the case of practical interest) is considered, and an optimal jamming strategy is derived in closed-form. Simulation examples demonstrate lower-bound rates, performance of the derived jamming strategy, and an effect of inaccurate channel information on the jamming strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it