MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046531624 · doi:10.1109/ita.2010.5454121

On the MISO compound wiretap channel

2010· article· en· W2046531624 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsTransmitterChannel (broadcasting)Topology (electrical circuits)Transmission (telecommunications)Coding (social sciences)Pairwise comparisonComputer scienceTelecommunicationsAntenna (radio)Computer networkCombinatoricsMathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the secure degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) of the MISO compound wiretap channel. The transmitter has M antennas, whereas the legitimate receiver and the eavesdropper each have one antenna and the channel vectors take one of finitely many values. If the number of states of either the legitimate receiver or the eavesdropper channel is less than M, then then we achieve full 1 d.o.f. If however the number of states of both the legitimate receiver and the eavesdropper channel are at-least equal to M, then we establish that the d.o.f. is strictly less than 1. Our upper bound is, to our knowledge, the first bound which is strictly tighter than the ¿pairwise upper bound¿. Lower bounds that combine ideas based on time-sharing, noise transmission, signal alignment and multi-level coding schemes are also provided.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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