MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176748244 · doi:10.2197/ipsjjip.23.554

A Model for Adversarial Wiretap Channels and its Applications

2015· article· en· W2176748244 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Processing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsComputer scienceSecrecyAdversarial systemAdversaryAlice and BobSecure communicationChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkCoding (social sciences)Secure codingSecret sharingTransmission (telecommunications)Computer securityTheoretical computer scienceCryptographyTelecommunicationsAlice (programming language)EncryptionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsInformation security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wiretap model of secure communication, Alice is connected to Bob and Eve by two noisy channels. Wyner's insight was that the difference in noise between the two channels can be used to provide perfect secrecy for communication between Alice and Bob, against the eavesdropper Eve. In Wyner's model, the adversary is passive. We consider a coding-theoretic model for wiretap channels with active adversaries who can choose their view of the communication channel and also add adversarial noise to the channel. We give an overview of the security definition and the known results for this model, and discuss its relation to two important cryptographic primitives: secure message transmission and robust secret sharing. In particular, we show that this model unifies the study of wiretap channels and secure message transmission in networks.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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