MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762622133 · doi:10.1109/infocom.2017.8057119

Secret key agreement using a virtual wiretap channel

2017· article· en· W2762622133 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Computer securityComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key agreement using physical layer properties of communication channels is a well studied problem. iJam is a physical layer key agreement protocol that achieves security by creating a “virtual” wiretap channel for the adversary through a subprotocol between the sender and the receiver that uses self-jamming by the receiver. The protocol was implemented and its security was shown through extensive experiments. The self-jamming subprotocol of iJam was later modelled as a wiretap channel and used for designing a secure message transmission protocol with provable security. We use the same wiretap model of the subprotocol to design secret key agreement protocols with provable security. We propose two protocols that use the wiretap channel once from Alice to Bob, and a protocol that uses two wiretap channels, one from Alice to Bob, and one in the opposite direction. We provide security proof and efficiency analysis for the protocols. The protocols effectively give physical layer security protocols that can be implemented and have provable security. We discuss our results and propose directions for future research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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