MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024304958 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2013.131130

Cooperative Spectrum Access Towards Secure Information Transfer for CRNs

2013· article· en· W2024304958 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 Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelayComputer networkSecrecyTransmission (telecommunications)Secure transmissionBeamformingJammingCognitive radioComputer securityPower (physics)TelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cognitive radio networks (CRNs), secure information transfer is of paramount importance for primary users (PUs), while secondary users (SUs) mainly desire to ease the starvation for transmission opportunities. To meet such different requirements, cooperation between PUs and SUs can be leveraged and therefore create a win-win situation. In this paper, we investigate cooperative spectrum access for CRNs, which targets to improve the secure transmission of PUs via cooperating SUs that would be incented by certain transmission opportunities. Two types of cooperation schemes are proposed, whereby the PU either cooperates with two individual SUs or a cluster of SUs, which are referred to as relay-jammer (R-J) scheme and cluster-beamforming (C-B) scheme, respectively. In R-J scheme, two individual SUs act as a relay and a friendly jammer to improve the PU's secrecy; In return, the PU allocates a fraction of access time for the SUs' transmission. To achieve the maximum secrecy rate, joint time and power allocation is considered. Particularly, the cooperating relay and jammer determine the optimal transmission power, while the PU decides the optimal time allocation strategy. In C-B scheme, the PU cooperates with a cluster of SUs to enhance the secrecy of the primary link via collaborative beamforming, where three different approaches are proposed for the scenarios with one eavesdropper, with multiple eavesdroppers, and without eavesdroppers' information, respectively. To maximize the secrecy rate, the weight selection and time allocation are also studied. Simulation results are given to validate the proposed schemes and demonstrate that the PU can significantly enhance the secrecy through cooperation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · 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