MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112677325 · doi:10.1109/milcom.2009.5379832

Defense against spectrum sensing data falsification attacks in mobile ad hoc networks with cognitive radios

2009· article· en· W2112677325 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceMobile ad hoc networkComputer networkScheme (mathematics)Wireless ad hoc networkComputer securitySpectrum (functional analysis)WirelessTelecommunicationsNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive radios (CRs) have been considered for use in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). The area of security in Cognitive Radio MANETs (CR-MANETs) has yet to receive much attention. However, some distinct characteristics of CRs introduce new, non-trivial security risks to CR-MANETs. In this paper, we study spectrum sensing data falsification (SSDF) attacks to CR-MANETs, in which intruders send false local spectrum sensing results in cooperative spectrum sensing, and SSDF may result in incorrect spectrum sensing decisions by CRs. We present a consensus-based cooperative spectrum sensing scheme to counter SSDF attacks in CR-MANETs. Our scheme is based on recent advances in consensus algorithms that have taken inspiration from self-organizing behavior of animal groups such as fish. Unlike the existing schemes, there is no need for a common receiver to do the data fusion for reaching the final decision to counter SSDF attacks. Simulation results are presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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