Secure Communications With a Full-Duplex Relay Network Under Residual Self-Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter studies secure communications in a full-duplex relay (FDR) network when an eavesdropper overhears communications between legitimate parties. In a FDR network, both the amplify-and-forward relay and the destination operate in full-duplex for the purpose of achieving a higher secrecy rate and/or improving security. In particular, the destination is capable of receiving the relayed signal and simultaneously emitting a cooperative jamming signal. This work is motivated by an intriguing question: how much residual self-interference (SI) in a FDR network is allowed to achieve a superiority of secrecy performance over conventional half-duplex relay (HDR) networks? To answer the question, the secrecy outage probability (SOP) of the FDR network is derived as a function of residual SI. The analytic results enable us to compare the SOPs of existing HDR networks and the FDR network at various levels of residual SI. In addition, this work allows one to opportunistically select either FD or HD, which leads to a significant performance improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".