Optimal Relay Selection for Physical-Layer Security in Cooperative Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the physical-layer security in cooperative wireless networks with multiple relays where both amplify-and-forward (AF) and decode-and-forward (DF) protocols are considered. We propose the AF and DF based optimal relay selection (i.e., AFbORS and DFbORS) schemes to improve the wireless security against eavesdropping attack. For the purpose of comparison, we examine the traditional AFbORS and DFbORS schemes, denoted by T-AFbORS and T-DFbORS, respectively. We also investigate a so-called multiple relay combining (MRC) framework and present the traditional AF and DF based MRC schemes, called T-AFbMRC and T-DFbMRC, where multiple relays participate in forwarding the source signal to destination which then combines its received signals from the multiple relays. We derive closed-form intercept probability expressions of the proposed AFbORS and DFbORS (i.e., P-AFbORS and P-DFbORS) as well as the T-AFbORS, T-DFbORS, T-AFbMRC and T-DFbMRC schemes in the presence of eavesdropping attack. We further conduct an asymptotic intercept probability analysis to evaluate the diversity order performance of relay selection schemes and show that no matter which relaying protocol is considered (i.e., AF and DF), the traditional and proposed optimal relay selection approaches both achieve the diversity order M where M represents the number of relays. In addition, numerical results show that for both AF and DF protocols, the intercept probability performance of proposed optimal relay selection is strictly better than that of the traditional relay selection and multiple relay combining methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".