MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726729862 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2017.2723565

Secure Massive MIMO Relaying Systems in a Poisson Field of Eavesdroppers

2017· article· en· W2726729862 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tiep M. Hoang, Trung Q. Duong, Hoang Duong Tuan, H. Vincent Poor

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastAustralian Research CouncilRoyal Academy of EngineeringDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRelayChannel state informationComputer networkTelecommunications linkComputer scienceMIMOTransmission (telecommunications)Reliability (semiconductor)Secure transmissionPoisson point processSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Channel (broadcasting)Antenna (radio)Power (physics)WirelessPoisson distributionTelecommunicationsMathematicsEncryptionPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cooperative relay network operating in the presence of eavesdroppers, whose locations are distributed according to a homogeneous Poisson point process, is considered. The relay is equipped with a very large antenna array and can exploit maximal ratio combing in the uplink and maximal ratio transmission in the downlink. A realistic model in which the channel state information of every eavesdropper is not known is considered, as eavesdroppers tend to hide themselves in practice. The destination is thus in a much weaker position than all the eavesdroppers because it only receives the retransmitted signal from the relay. Under this setting, the security performance is investigated for two relaying protocols: amplify-and-forward and decode-and-forward. The secrecy outage probability, the connection outage probability, and the tradeoff between them, which is controlled by the source power allocation, are examined. Finally, suitable solutions for the source power (such that once the transmission occurs with high reliability, the secure risk is below a given threshold) are proposed for a tradeoff between security and reliability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207