Physical layer security using BCH and LDPC codes with adaptive granular HARQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission techniques based on channel coding with feedback are proposed in this paper to enhance the security of wireless communications systems at the physical layer. Reliable and secure transmission over an additive noise Gaussian wiretap channel is investigated using Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) and Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) channel codes. A hybrid automatic repeat-request (HARQ) protocol is used to allow for the retransmission of coded packets requested by the intended receiver (Bob). It is assumed that an eavesdropper (Eve) has access to all forward and feedback transmitted packets. To limit the information leakage to Eve, retransmitted packets are subdivided into smaller granular subpackets. Retransmissions are stopped as soon as the decoding process at the legitimate (Bob) receiver converges. For the hard decision decoded BCH codes, a framework to compute the frame error probability with granular HARQ is proposed. For LDPC codes, the HARQ retransmission requests are based on received symbols likelihood computations: the legitimate recipient request for the retransmission of the set of bits that are more likely to help for successful LDPC decoding. The performances of the proposed techniques are assessed for nul and negative security gap (SG) values, that is when the eavesdropper's channel benefits from equal or better channel conditions than the legitimate 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".