On the Secrecy Rate Achievability in Dual-Hop Amplify-and-Forward Relay Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The achievable secrecy rate of a dual-hop amplify-and-forward relaying system, in the presence of an eavesdropper, is investigated based on the different values of the wireless links' signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). It is shown that when the direct link to the eavesdropper is in a better condition than the direct link to the destination, but the relaying link for the destination is better than the relaying link for the eavesdropper, under specific conditions for the links SNRs, it is possible to achieve the secrecy rate for a limited range of the relay power. On the other hand, when the direct link to the destination is better than the direct link to the eavesdropper, under certain conditions for the links' SNRs, it is not always beneficial to employ the relay, since there exists a limited range of relaying power for which secrecy rate is not achievable. Finally, it is shown that the source transmit power has no impact on the secrecy rate achievability. Simulation results confirm the theoretical analysis carried out in this letter.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".