Secrecy-Enhancing Design for Cooperative Downlink and Uplink NOMA With an Untrusted Relay
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
We investigate a secrecy-enhancing design for cooperative downlink and uplink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) transmissions with an untrusted relay. A source uses the NOMA principle to have downlink and uplink transmissions with a near user and a far user, and the communications between the source and the far user are aided by an untrusted relay. To minimize information leakage at the untrusted relay and achieve secure NOMA communications, adaptive downlink and uplink cooperative jamming schemes are proposed, where the far user in downlink and the near user in uplink adaptively emit a jamming signal to the untrusted relay to impair its eavesdropping capability. Both downlink and uplink jamming power are optimized to fully exploit the benefits of the proposed schemes for security enhancement. Then, for each scheme, we quantify the secrecy performance by deriving the ergodic secrecy sum rate lower bound and its scaling law. Finally, computer simulation is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed adaptive downlink and uplink cooperative jamming schemes and verify the accuracy of the derived analytical 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it