Secure Broadcasting Using Independent Secret Keys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of secure broadcasting with independent secret keys is studied. The particular scenario is analyzed in which a common message has to be broadcast to two legitimate receivers, while keeping an external eavesdropper ignorant of it. The transmitter shares independent secret keys of sufficiently high rates with both legitimate receivers, which can be used in different ways: they can be used as one-time pads to encrypt the common message, as fictitious messages for wiretap coding, or as a hybrid of these. In this paper, capacity results are established when the broadcast channels involving the three receivers are degraded. If both legitimate channels are degraded versions of the eavesdropper's channel, it is shown that the one-time pad approach is optimal for several cases, yielding corresponding capacity expressions. Alternatively, the wiretap coding approach is shown to be optimal if the eavesdropper's channel is degraded with respect to both legitimate channels, establishing capacity in this case as well. If the eavesdropper's channel is neither the strongest nor the weakest, an intricate scheme that carefully combines both concepts of one-time pad and wiretap coding with fictitious messages turns out to be capacity-achieving. Finally we also obtain some results for the general non-degraded broadcast 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".