Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of sending a secret message over the Gaussian multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wiretap channel is studied. While the capacity of this channel is known, it is not clear how to construct optimal coding schemes that achieve this capacity. In this paper, we use linear operations along with successive interference cancellation to attain effective parallel single-antenna wiretap channels. By using independent scalar Gaussian wiretap codebooks over the resulting parallel channels, the capacity of the MIMO wiretap channel is achieved. The derivation of the schemes is based upon joint triangularization of the channel matrices. We find that the same technique can be used to rederive capacity expressions for the MIMO wiretap channel in a way that is simple and closely connected to a transmission scheme. This technique allows to extend the previously proven strong security for scalar Gaussian channels to the MIMO case. We further consider the problem of transmitting confidential messages over a two-user broadcast MIMO channel. For that problem, we find that derivation of both the capacity and a transmission scheme is a direct corollary of the proposed analysis for the MIMO wiretap channel.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".