Design and Performance Analysis of Secure Multicasting Cooperative Protocol for Wireless Sensor Network Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter proposes a new security cooperative protocol, for dual phase amplify-and-forward large wireless sensor networks. In such a network, a portion of the K relays can be potential eavesdroppers. The source agrees to share with the destination a given channel state information (CSI) of a source-trusted relay-destination link to encode the message. Then, in the first hop, the source will use this CSI to map the right message to a certain sector while transmitting fake messages to the other sectors using sectoral transmission. In the second hop, the relays retransmit their received signals to the destination, using the distributed beamforming technique. We derived the secrecy outage probability and demonstrated that the probability of receiving the right encoded information by an untrustworthy relay is inversely proportional to the number of sectors. We also showed that the aggressive behavior of the cooperating untrusted relays is not effective compared to the case where each untrusted relay is trying to intercept the transmitted message individually.
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 | 0.000 | 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".