Butterfly Encryption Scheme for Resource-Constrained Wireless Networks
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
Resource-constrained wireless networks are emerging networks such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and Wireless Body Area Networks (WBAN) that might have restrictions on the available resources and the computations that can be performed. These emerging technologies are increasing in popularity, particularly in defence, anti-counterfeiting, logistics and medical applications, and in consumer applications with growing popularity of the Internet of Things. With communication over wireless channels, it is essential to focus attention on securing data. In this paper, we present an encryption scheme called Butterfly encryption scheme. We first discuss a seed update mechanism for pseudorandom number generators (PRNG), and employ this technique to generate keys and authentication parameters for resource-constrained wireless networks. Our scheme is lightweight, as in it requires less resource when implemented and offers high security through increased unpredictability, owing to continuously changing parameters. Our work focuses on accomplishing high security through simplicity and reuse. We evaluate our encryption scheme using simulation, key similarity assessment, key sequence randomness assessment, protocol analysis and security analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 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