Secure Full-Duplex Spectrum-Sharing Wiretap Networks with Different Antenna Reception Schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the secrecy performance of full-duplex multi-antenna spectrum-sharing wiretap networks in which a jamming signal is simultaneously transmitted by the full-duplex secondary receiver (Bob) based on the zero forcing beamforming (ZFB) algorithm. For the security enhancement, we propose the two antenna reception schemes: 1) random selection combining (RSC) where Bob selects LB antennas at random to combine the received signals and 2) generalized selection combining (GSC) where Bob selects LB strongest antennas to combine the received signals. We derive the exact closed-form expressions for the secrecy outage probability of full-duplex multi-antenna spectrum-sharing wiretap networks with ZFB algorithm. In order to explore a new design of the proposed schemes, we provide tractable asymptotic approximations for the secrecy outage probability in high signal-to-noise ratio regime under two distinct scenarios. From the analysis, we demonstrate that: 1) when the main channel is much better than the eavesdropper's channel, GSC/ZFB scheme achieves full diversity NB, while RSC/ZFB scheme only achieves partial diversity LB and 2) GSC/ZFB scheme achieves better secrecy performance than RSC/ZFB with different antenna numbers at Bob.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".