MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516840126 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2015.2446436

Improving wireless secrecy rate via full-duplex relay-assisted protocols

2015· article· en· W1516840126 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFull-Duplex Wireless Communications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayJammingComputer scienceSecrecyFadingWirelessComputer networkTransmission (telecommunications)Channel (broadcasting)Secure transmissionPower (physics)TelecommunicationsComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we examine the use of a friendly full-duplex (FD) relay to increase the secrecy rate over a fading channel between the legitimate source and the destination in the presence of residual self-interference (SI) and eavesdropper. In particular, we consider two different protocols based on the FD capability of relay: 1) FD transmission (FDT), in which the FD-Relay receives and sends data concurrently; 2) FD-Relay with jamming (FDJ), where first, the FD-Relay simultaneously receives data and sends jamming to the eavesdropper; then, it forwards the data, while the source jams the eavesdropper. We first develop the secrecy rate expressions for half-duplex transmission (HDT), half-duplex with jamming (HDJ), FDT, and FDJ relaying protocols, and then use them to derive their performance properties in terms of the channel gains between nodes, eavesdropper types, and more importantly, the SI level in FD-Relay. We further investigate the non-convex power allocation problems for the developed FDT and FDJ to maximize the secrecy rate under the power constraints. In particular, we develop an efficient iterative algorithm based on the difference-of-two-concave-functions programming. Analytical and simulation results show the strong influence of SI level on the achieved secrecy rate of the FDT and the FDJ. For sufficiently low SI, FDT achieves a much higher secrecy rate than FDJ, HDJ, and HDT. However, for higher SI, FDJ becomes more effective in enhancing the achieved secrecy rate. The results also indicate that adaptive power allocation can significantly improve the performance and confirm that the proposed FDT and FDJ outperform the HDT and the HDJ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it