A Comprehensive Survey on Cooperative Relaying and Jamming Strategies for Physical Layer Security
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical layer security (PLS) has been extensively explored as an alternative to conventional cryptographic schemes for securing wireless links. Many studies have shown that the cooperation between the legitimate nodes of a network can significantly enhance their secret communications performance, relative to the noncooperative case. Motivated by the importance of this class of PLS systems, this paper provides a comprehensive survey of the recent works on cooperative relaying and jamming techniques for securing wireless transmissions against eavesdropping nodes, which attempt to intercept the transmissions. First, it provides a in-depth overview of various secure relaying strategies and schemes. Next, a review of recently proposed solutions for cooperative jamming techniques is provided with an emphasis on power allocation and beamforming techniques. Then, the latest developments in hybrid techniques, which use both cooperative relaying and jamming, are elaborated. Finally, several key challenges in the domain of cooperative security are presented along with an extensive discussion on the applications of cooperative security in key enablers for 5G communications, such as nonorthogonal multiple access, device-to-device communications, and massive multiple-input multiple-output systems.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it