Eavesdropping attack in collaborative wireless networks: Security protocols and intercept behavior
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 security issues in a collaborative wireless network in the presence of eavesdropping attacks, where multiple amplify-and-forward (AF) relays are exploited to secure the message transmission between legitimate users. We first consider the multiple AF relays all participating in assisting the transmission from source to destination, which is called all-relay based collaborative transmission scheme as denoted by all-relay scheme for notational convenience. We also propose the best-relay transmission scheme in which only the single “best” relay is selected to help the source transmit messages to destination. We then analyze the intercept behavior in wireless networks and evaluate intercept probabilities of the proposed all-relay and best-relay schemes as well as the conventional direct transmission without relay in a Rayleigh fading environment. Numerical results show that the best-relay transmission scheme always outperforms the all-relay and direct transmission schemes in terms of intercept probability. It is also shown that as the number of eavesdroppers increases, the intercept probabilities of both all-relay and best-relay schemes increase. Moreover, the intercept probability performance of all-relay and best-relay schemes significantly improves with an increasing number of relays, implying the advantage of exploiting multiple relays against eavesdropping attacks.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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