Interactive message transmission over adversarial wiretap channel II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Wyner wiretap II model of communication, Alice and Bob are connected by a channel that can be eavesdropped by an adversary with unlimited computation who can select a fraction of communication to view, and the goal is to provide perfect information theoretic security. Information theoretic security is increasingly important because of the threat of quantum computers that can effectively break algorithms and protocols that are used in today's public key infrastructure. We consider interactive protocols for wiretap II channel with active adversary who can eavesdrop and add adversarial noise to the eavesdropped part of the codeword. These channels capture wireless setting where malicious eavesdroppers at reception distance of the transmitter can eavesdrop the communication and introduce jamming signal to the channel. We derive a new upperbound R ≤ 1 - ρ for the rate of interactive protocols over two-way wiretap II channel with active adversaries, and construct a perfectly secure protocol family with achievable rate 1 - 2ρ + ρ2. This is strictly higher than the rate of the best one round protocol which is 1 - 2ρ, hence showing that interaction improves rate. We also prove that even with interaction, reliable communication is possible only if ρ <; 1/2. An interesting aspect of this work is that our bounds will also hold in network setting when two nodes are connected by n paths, a ρ of which is corrupted by the adversary. We discuss our results, give their relations to the other works, and propose directions for future work.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".