MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538574033 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2015.7255148

Enhancing secrecy of the Gaussian wiretap channel using rate compatible LDPC codes with error amplification

2015· article· en· W1538574033 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Haj Taieb, Jean‐Yves Chouinard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsLow-density parity-check codeComputer scienceSecrecyChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkNetwork packetBit error rateAlgorithmComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a physical layer coding scheme to secure communications over the Gaussian wiretap channel. This scheme is based on non-systematic Rate-Compatible Low-Density-Parity-Check (RC-LDPC) codes. The rate compatibility involves the presence of a feedback channel that allows transmission at the minimum rate required for legitimate successful decoding. Whenever the decoding is unsuccessful, a feedback request is sent back by the intended receiver, favoring the legitimate recipient over an unauthorized receiver (eavesdropper). The proposed coding scheme uses a finer granularity rate compatible code to increase the eavesdropper decoding failure rate. However, finer granularity also implies longer decoding delays. For this reason, a rate estimator based on the wiretap channel capacity is used. For this purpose, a set of packets is sent at once and then successive small packets are added subsequently as needed until successful decoding by the legitimate receiver is achieved. Since the secrecy level can be assessed through the bit error rate (BER) at the unintended receiver, an error amplifier is proposed to convert the loss of only few packets in the wiretap channel into much higher BERs for the eavesdroppers. Simulation results show the secrecy improvements obtained in terms of error amplification with the proposed coding scheme. Negative security gaps can also be achieved at the physical layer.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.274
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207