Cooperative Key Agreement for Wireless Networking: Key Rates and Practical Protocol Design
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
In this paper, we investigate the design of a practical information-theoretically secure secret key agreement protocol for a cooperative wireless network employing standard modulation. Assuming relay selection has been completed, the key agreement problem is studied in a three-node cooperative wireless communication system over block-fading channels. Passive attacks from an eavesdropper collocated with the relay are considered. We derive upper and lower bounds on the secret key rate of this cooperative wireless system. The difference between the bounds is shown to be small for practical communication scenarios, which indicates they are tight. We then propose a practical secret key agreement protocol for this system with both the communicants and the honest relay participating in the public discussion. The tradeoff between security and protocol efficiency is considered in the joint design of advantage distillation, information reconciliation, and privacy amplification. The protocol parameters are optimized to achieve the tight bound on the secret key rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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