Secrecy Energy Efficiency Maximization in Cognitive Radio Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate a tradeoff between the secrecy rate (SR) and energy efficiency (EE) in an underlay cognitive radio network that consists of a cognitive base station (CBS), a cognitive user (CU), a primary user (PU), and multiple eavesdroppers (EDs). By using a so-called secrecy EE (SEE), which is defined as the ratio of SR to the total power consumption of CBS, as the design criterion, we formulate an SEE maximization (SEEM) problem for the CBS-CU transmission under the constraints of the transmit power of CBS, the SR of CU, and the quality-of-service (QoS) requirement of PU. Since the formulated optimization problem with a fractional objective function is non-convex and mathematically intractable, we first convert the original fractional objective function into an equivalent subtractive form, and then develop a method of combining the penalty function and the difference of two-convex functions (D.C.) approach to obtain an approximate convex problem. Based on this, an optimal beamforming (OBF) scheme is finally proposed to obtain the optimal solution. Furthermore, to reduce the computational complexity, we design a zero-forcing-based beamforming (ZFBF) scheme to achieve a sub-optimal solution to the SEEM problem. Simulation results are given to illustrate the effectiveness and advantage of the proposed SEE oriented OBF and ZFBF schemes over conventional SR maximization and EE maximization schemes.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".