Multi-Hop Routing in Covert Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In covert communication, Alice tries to communicate with Bob without being detected by a warden Willie. When the distance between Alice and Bob becomes large compared with the distance between Alice and Willie(s), the performance of covert communication will be degraded. In this case, multi-hop message transmission via intermediate relays can help to improve the performance. Hence, in this paper, multi-hop covert communication over a moderate size network and in the presence of multiple collaborating Willies is considered. The relays can transmit covertly using either a single key for all relays or different independent keys at the relays. For each case, we develop efficient algorithms to find optimal paths with maximum throughput and minimum end-to-end delay between Alice and Bob. As expected, employing multiple hops significantly improves the ability to communicate covertly versus the case of a single-hop transmission. Furthermore, at the expense of more shared key bits, analytical results and numerical simulations demonstrate that the multi-hop covert communication with different independent keys at the relays has better performance than the multi-hop covert communication with a single key.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".