Secrecy performance of a two‐way communication network with two half‐duplex DF relays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the authors evaluate the secrecy performance of a two‐way communication network via two half‐duplex decode and forward relays under an eavesdropper attacking. The sources (S1 and S2) communicate with each other via the relays in two phases. Due to the directional antennas at the relay, eavesdropper does not eavesdrop from the relay. The eavesdropper only eavesdrops the message from one of two sources at a time, which has higher strength. The total relay power is divided between two relays. An optimal value of power allocation, which minimises the secrecy outage probability (SOP), is derived under equal and different transmit power of both the sources. The optimal value of transmitting power of S1 is obtained for a fixed value of transmitting power of S2. Performance in terms of the SOP increases with increase in transmit power of the sources, supply power for relays while it may decrease with increase in transmit power of one source beyond its optimal value for a given transmit power of the other source and increase in the threshold of global secrecy rate. They derive a closed‐form expression of SOP of this proposed model. The analytical results are validated by our MATLAB based simulation results
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".